Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

PRIVATE BILLS (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, referred on the Second Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:

Reading Gas Bill.

Farnham Gas and Electricity Bill

Frimley and Farnborough District Water Bill.

Southern Railway (Superannuation Fund) Bill.

Southern Railway Bill.

Great Western Railway Bill.

Bills committed.

Greenock Burgh Extension, etc., Bill (by Order),

Read a Second time, and committed.

BUXTON CORPORATION BILL.

Ordered, That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Buxton Corporation Bill that they shall have regard to the provisions of Section 56 of The Public Health Act, 1925, so far as Clause 14. Sub-clause (2), is concerned.—(Mr. Herbert Williams).

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

COMPANIES (PARTICULARS AS TO DIRECTORS) ACT.

Sir PARK GOFF: 2.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will consider the advisability of relaxing the War-time restrictions of 1917 whereby the
names of directors in all new companies, and partners in all firms, must be published on all communications issued from the company?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): My hon. Friend is under a misapprehension in describing these provisions as "Wartime restrictions." The Registration of Business Names Act was pressed for by the Chambers of Commerce and others for many years before the War. Within the last few years the opinion has been expressed by representative bodies that it is in the interests of the commercial community that the Act should be maintained, and the Companies (Particulars as to Directors) Act is an essential corollary to the Registration of Business Names Act.

Sir ROBERT THOMAS: Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries as to the suitability of these, directors to hold the positions which they occupy?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, Sir. That is no part of my duty or of my powers under the Act. All I am entitled to do is to inquire who the directors are.

FOOD COUNCIL (LONDON MASTER BAKERS' PROTECTION SOCIETY).

Mr. R. MORRISON: 5.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the London Master Bakers' Protection Society has decided to ignore any further representations made to them by the Food Council; and what steps he proposes to take to make future representations by the Council effective?

Viscount SANDON: 1.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the response of the master bakers to the recommendations of the Food Council; and whether he is prepared to take any steps to enforce these recommendations?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I understand that the Food Council have been informed by the London Master Bakers' Protection Society that the letter of the Food Council of the 14th February, which was published in the Press, is being brought before the executive committee of the Protection Society, and that
the Food Council have not yet received any further reply to that letter. If the Protection Society should refuse to accept or discuss the proposal made by the Food Council, which seems to me to be an eminently reasonable one, I assume that the Food Council would, in accordance with the plan proposed in their letter, publish at stated intervals the number of days for which the bakers ought to give credit, or would be entitled to take credit, in the succeeding period.

Mr. MORRISON: Seeing that the Food Council was set up by the Government, is not the right hon. Gentleman prepared to take any further action with an organisation like this, in order to prevent a Department set up by himself from being treated with contempt?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, Sir. That is not a fair way of putting the position, what I am prepared to do is to back up the Food Council in that course, in informing public opinion, so that it may be able to assert itself.

Mr. MORRISON: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that the statement made by the President and Secretary of the Master Bakers' Society to the effect that they intend to throw Communications from the Food Council into the waste paper basket does not enhance the prestige of the Food Council in the eyes of the public?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I do not think that an ex-parte statement made by anybody will be in the least likely to detract from the reputation and success of the Food Council. I should like to say—I have looked into this matter rather carefully—that the statement to which the hon. Member refers was a statement made by gentleman in his individual capacity. As I have stated in my answer, the Society say they are considering the proposal. With regard to the question of the date at which prices should be altered. I am sure the line which the Food Council are taking is sound, and it is exactly the line which they took in regard to the general price scale and which has been eminently successful.

Mr. MONTAGUE: How does the right hon. Gentleman expect the public to protect themselves?

IMPERIAL PREFERENCE.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: 7.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will consider publishing a statement showing the total imports during 1926 from each part of the British Empire, together with the percentage of such imports which received a customs preference on importation?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The values of the total imports during 1926 from each Empire country are set out in the issue of the monthly accounts relating to Trade and Navigation for last January. More detailed information, as to the several imports making up these totals, is not available; but when it becomes so, I will consider whether a statement as to imports receiving a customs preference can be extracted from it.

LACE IMPORTS.

Mr. RILEY (for Mr. T. WILLIAMS): 3.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the value of the lace imported into the United Kingdom for the year 1924 and the two subsequent years?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The value of the imports, into the United Kingdom, of lace of all descriptions, less re-exports, was £505,257 in 1924, £609,880 in 1925, and £458,555 in 1926.

LINEN (EXPORTS TO MALTA).

Mr. RILEY (for Mr. T. WILLIAMS): 4.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the value of the linen exported from Great Britain and Northern Ireland to Malta during the year 1924 and the two subsequent years?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The value of linen goods—the produce of Great Britain and Northern Ireland—exported to Malta amounted to £5,381 in 1924, £5,325 in 1925, and £4,981 in 1926.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA.

BRITISH EXPORTS.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 8.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state the total value of British exports to China for the last three months of 1926 and the figures for the last three months of 1925?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The value of the exports of British produce and manufactures consigned to China was £3,240,000 in the last three months of 1925, and £2,570,000 in the last three months of 1926. The figures are given in the accounts relating to Trade and Navigation of the United Kingdom for January, 1927.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Can the right hon. Gentleman state the reason for the falling off in exports?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I should think it is through the unsettled condition of China.

SHANGHAI (POLICE PATROLS).

Mr. BARKER: 63.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, seeing that certain British forces have undertaken police patrol work on the outskirts of the international settlement at Shanghai previously performed by the Chinese authorities, he will say whether

Exports of Cotton Piece Goods to China.


Country whence exported.
1925.
1926.
1925.
1926.


Quantities expressed in thousand linear yards.
Quantities expressed in thousand square yards.


1. From United Kingdom:


Total of cotton piece goods:


To China
…
155,416
not yet available.
141,758
Not yet available.


To Hong Kong
…
35,864
31,634


Total
…
191,280
185,775(a)
173,392
177,466


2. From United States:


Cotton cloth, unbleached:
Not recorded in the U.S. Official Returns.




To China
…
6,530
632


Other cotton piece goods:




To China
…
907
(b)


To Hong Kong
…
238


Total
…


7,675







Values.


3. From Japan:


To China:


Thous. yen.
Thous. yen.


Cotton piece goods:

(Jan.-Sept.)

(Jan.-Sept.)


(1) Recorded by the yard
…
403,700
338,400
118,597
81,915


(2) Recorded by value only
…
Quantities not recorded.
75,416
62,101


To China
…
194,013
144,016


To Hong Kong
…


20,577
13,078

before this arrangement was made consideration was given as to its possible effect upon the policy of neutrality?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATF for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson): So far as I know, British forces have not undertaken any police patrol work previously performed by the Chinese authorities.

COTTON PIECE GOODS (IMPORTS).

Mr. SHORT: 11.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the quantities of cotton piece goods exported to China in 1925 and 1926 by Great Britain, the United States, and Japan, respectively?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The answer involves a statistical table, and, with the hon. Member's permission, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

The following table gives the particulars, as far as they are available:

BRITISH FORCE, TIENTSIN.

Commander FANSHAWE: 15.
asked the Secretary of State for War the strength and composition of the British force which was at Tientsin before the despatch of the Shanghai defence force; has any reduction of the force taken place at any time since it was established in 1900; and are any other foreign troops stationed at Tientsin?

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans): The establishment of the British force at Tientsin is one infantry battalion. From this force a company is detached for duty at Peking, and a platoon at Wei-hai-wei. From 1900 to the present date the composition of the garrison of Tientsin has varied from time to time, but the maximum establishment during the period, which was reached in 1912, was two British and one Indian battalions together with certain details. There are detachments of American, French, Italian and Japanese troops at Tientsin, totalling approximately 3,400.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

RAILWAYS (REORGANISATION).

Sir BASIL PETO: 9.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the position of the railway industry as disclosed by the annual accounts of recent years, and having regard to the importance to all other industries of transport facilities supplied at a reasonable cost, he will advise the appointment of a Royal Commission or a Departmental Committee to carry out an exhaustive inquiry and make recommendations for the reorganisation of the railway industry?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): I have been asked to reply.
As my hon. Friend is no doubt aware, the Railways Act, 1921, provided for an extensive reorganisation of the railways. Important changes of this kind cannot yield their full results at once and I do not consider that any such inquiry as is suggested in the question would serve a useful purpose.

Sir B. PETO: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the fact that, since 1921 the financial position of the railway com-
panies has become worse, and that it is largely due to the policy of driving traffic on to the roads?

Colonel ASHLEY: No, Sir. If the financial position of the railway companies has become worse since the date mentioned by my hon. Friend, it is largely due to a period or bad trade, the, general strike and the coal strike.

LEVEL CROSSINGS (FATALITIES).

Mr. CHARLETON: 29.
asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been drawn to the rapidly increasing number of fatalities at the railway level crossings, and to the opinion contained in his Inspector's Report into the collision which happened at Naworth, London and North Eastern Railway, on the 30th August, 1926, respecting the general adoption of interlocking of signals with crossing gates; and whether, in the event of the opinion not being given effect to, the other suggestion contained in the same Report may be given effect to, and that a warning gong be affixed to crossing gates, which gong only operates when danger is present, which device can be immediately installed at little cost, and which provides practically all the elements of safety incorporated by the interlocking of signals with crossing gates?

Colonel ASHLEY: The number of persons killed in accidents at public and private railway level crossings in Great Britain was 55 in 1925 and 59 in 1926. These figures show a, slight diminution when compared with the corresponding average figure of 67 for the five pre-War years ended in 1914, but the figures have varied considerably. As regards the particular accident mentioned, the railway company have informed me that they propose to adopt both the recommendation as to interlocking and the suggestion as to the provision of a warning bell, to which the hon. Member refers.

OMNIBUS SERVICES (FINSBURY PARK).

Mr. R. MORRISON: 30.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he is considering a proposal to reduce any omnibus services from Finsbury Park northwards; and, before he sanctions any reductions, whether he will give the local authorities in the areas concerned an opportunity of submitting their views upon the proposals?

Colonel ASHLEY: No such proposal is at present before me, but I understand that the London Traffic Advisory Committee are considering proposals for a reduction of omnibus services on certain routes from Finsbury Park northwards. The Committee, I am informed, propose to confer with the local authorities concerned before making any recommendations to me in the matter.

ROADWAYS (WIMBLEDON COMMON).

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: 31.
asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been called to the dangerous state of the roadway across the middle of Wimbledon Common, passing the windmill; and whether he will take steps in the public interest, to see that the repairs are undertaken without further delay?

Colonel ASHLEY: I am familiar with the problem of the roads across the Common, which are repairable by the Wimbledon and Putney Conservators. My officers have taken part in negotiations between the Conservators and other public bodies, in the hope that arrangements might be made for the transfer of the roads in question to certain highway authorities, but I regret to say that no feasible solution has yet been found. I am not in a position to impose requirements upon, or to make grants to the Conservators, who are not a highway authority.

Sir W. DAVISON: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this is the direct road from the West of London to Surrey and Sussex, and does he not think that some steps should be taken to get this quite impassable roadway repaired?

Colonel ASHLEY: All I can say is that I personally have no authority to impose any rules upon the Conservators, nor am I able to make any grant.

LONDON UNDERGROUND RAILWAYS (OVERCROWDING).

Mr. KELLY: 34.
asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been called to the dangerous overcrowding of trains on the underground railways, particularly in the mornings when men, women and young people are travelling to their work; and will he take steps to insist upon the companies concerned providing better facilities for the travelling public?

Colonel ASHLEY: So far as I am aware, the companies concerned are doing what they can to minimise overcrowding on underground railways, but if the hon. Member will give me particulars of cases where avoidable overcrowding occurs, I will bring them to the notice of the railway company.

Mr. KELLY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is so general that he can find examples of it on each of the underground railways in London any morning?

Colonel ASHLEY: yes, but the hon. Member puts down a question on these lines, and I think it is up to him to give instances in support of his contention.

Captain GARRO-JONES: Does the right hon. Gentleman recollect that the Traffic Advisory Committee, on which he relies for advice in this matter, has stated that no improvement can occur in the North Eastern Railway service until that line is electrified? Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to take any steps to expedite electrification?

Mr. SPEAKER: The original question related to the underground railways.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Is my right hon. Friend aware that or a recent morning, on the occasion of a breakdown on the District Railway, when there were large numbers of people held up on the Putney-Wimbledon line, the additional coaches put on during rush hours were taken off as if there had been no congestion?

Mr. SPEAKER: Notice should be given of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

CATTERICK VOCATIONAL TRAINING CENTRE.

Mr. W. BAKER: 12.
asked the Secretary of State for War the number of men trained at Catterick; the number who have emigrated after training; and, if possible, to indicate the proportion of favourable reports which have been received?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON EVANS: The total number trained in all trades at the Vocational Training Centre, Catterick, is approximately 1,320, of whom approximately 410 were trained in farming. Of this latter number, about 190 emigrated
after training. As regards the last part of the question, reports are not called for, but a number of favourable reports have been received.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

DRILL HALL, PENICUIK, MIDLOTHIAN.

Mr. WESTWOOD: 13.
asked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that the drill hall, Penicuik, Midlothian, is at present used as an ex-service men's club; that they have received one month's notice to vacate the hall; that the reason given for such action is that the War Office are exercising their prescriptive rights over the drill hall, which is to be sold as quickly as possible; and will he have inquiries made into this case with a view to having the hall retained for the benefit of ex-service men?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: This drill hall is vested in trustees and does not belong to the War Department. It was at one time used for Territorial Army purposes, and in 1910 in order to extend the accommodation a loan of £200 was made from Army Funds on the security of the property, subject to repayment if at any time the hall was no longer required for the Territorial Army. As this is now the case, it has been decided to call in the mortgage, but if the Trustees have any proposals to make regarding the repayment of the amount due, I shall be prepared to give the matter full consideration.

Mr. WESTWOOD: Will the right hon. Gentleman be prepared to grant me an interview immediately after Question Time, in order that I may place before him the facts which I have just received?

Colonel ASHLEY: Yes, certainly.

BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (EXPENDITURE).

Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR: 16.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the total sum expended on land settlement and on all other activities of the Board of Agriculture for Scotland during the year ending 31st March, 1926, and up to the last convenient date in the current year?

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir John Gilmour): During the year ended 31st March, 1926, the total gross sum expended on land settlement
was £215,950, and on all other activities of the Board of Agriculture for Scotland £286,189; for the half year to 30th September, 1926, the corresponding figures are £104,464 and £104,595. These figures are exclusive of administrative expenses, which for the year to 31st March, 1926, amounted to £129,766 and for the half year to 30th September, 1926, amounted to £63,652.

ERRIBOL ESTATE (SALE).

Sir A. SINCLAIR: 17.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how the price of transfer of the five-year-old ewes was fixed under the special agreement with the purchaser of the Erribol sheep stock?

Sir J. GILMOUR: The price of the five-year-old ewes transferred to the purchaser of Erribol estate was fixed at the average of the prices realised by the Board of Agriculture for the cast ewes.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: Is it not extraordinary that the price of these younger classes should be fixed by the price received for the old cast ewes being sold off the farm?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is a matter of agricultural opinion.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: 18.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland at what amount the Erribol sheep stock was valued by the Board of Agriculture for Scotland in their accounts as at Whitsunday, 1925, and Whitsunday, 1926, respectively; and whether acclimitisation value is included in both these valuations?

Sir J. GILMOUR: The answer to the first part of the question is: at Whitsunday, 1925, £20,954; at Whitsunday, 1926, £17,808 2s. 6d. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: Is not the fact that these sheep were valued at £20,000 in 1925, at £17,000 in 1926, and were finally sold for less than £10,000, sufficient justification for the large number of questions that have been put on the Paper?

Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Is not this case a great warning as to the dangers of adopting the Liberal land policy?

Sir A. SINCLAIR: Is it not the fact that the Secretary of State for Scotland has adopted the Liberal land policy?

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how much longer this volcano is going to be allowed to erupt?

SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION (PEEBLESSHIRE).

Mr. WESTWOOD: 29.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of children in Peeblesshire of school age resident more than three miles from the nearest school; and what provision, if any, the Peeblesshire Education Authority make for the conveyance of children residing without the three miles limit from the nearest school?

Sir J. GILMOUR: The education authority inform me that they have not been able in the time to obtain the information necessary to answer the first part of the question. They state, however, generally that all applications by parents resident more than three miles from the nearest school for assistance to enable their children to attend school have been granted, with the exception of a new application which will come before the authority at their next meeting.

RURAL WORKERS (HOUSING).

Mr. MacKENZIE LIVINGSTONE: 21.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress is being made in Scotland with the recent Housing (Rural Workers) Act, 1926?

Sir J. GILMOUR: As the hon. Member is aware, the first step towards putting the Act in operation is the preparation by the local authorities of a scheme of assistance and its submission to the Scottish Board of Health for their approval. To date, draft schemes covering the districts of 11 local authorities have been submitted to the Board, who are in correspondence with the local authorities concerned regarding details of these schemes. In addition, from the inquiries received by the Board it would appear that many other local authorities are considering the adoption of schemes.

LOCAL TAXATION (PUBLIC UNDERTAKINGS).

Sir ROBERT HUTCHISON: 22.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, in view of the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Local Taxation, he will consider the desirability of introducing to Parliament at an early date legislation to amend the
present law and practice with respect to the valuing of waterworks and other public undertakings; so as to remove the anomalies and inequities which at present prevail?

Sir J. GILMOUR: The position of waterworks and other public undertakings will be considered in connection with any legislation which may be introduced amending the Valuation Acts. I regret I am unable to give any undertaking with regard to the introduction of such legislation.

POTATOES (WART DISEASE ORDER).

Mr. W. M. WATSON (for Mr. T. KENNEDY): 19.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that the parishes of Strathmiglo, Culross, Falkland, Auchtermuchty and Tulliallan, in Fifeshire, are declared to be infected areas under the Wart Disease of Potatoes (Scotland) Order, 1923; that out of 915 gardens visited and inspected last year only three cases of disease were discovered; and that farmers whose land is within a mile of a garden found to be affected several years ago are still prevented under the Order from marketing their crops in the export market; and whether he can promise any modification of the Order which would remove this hardship, in view of the satisfactory results obtained in the County of Fife from the county council's efforts to control and eradicate the disease?

Sir J. GILMOUR: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I am not aware of the number of gardens inspected last year by the local authority's inspector; but since occupiers of gardens are now restricted generally to planting only varieties of potatoes immune from wart disease, the fact that few cases of disease were discovered is not a true index to the condition of the land. The three outbreaks referred to were probably due to a contravention of the Regulations or to the planting of impure seed. Farmers whose land, whether within or without an infected area, is not more than one mile from the nearest known case of wart disease are prevented by the Regulations of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries from sending to England seed potatoes of varieties susceptible to wart disease. As no means of eradicating wart disease from the soil has yet been discovered, land which is known to be
infected must be regarded ask infected far an indefinite period. I regret that as at present advised I cannot hold out any immediate hope of a relaxation of the present restrictions.

UNEMPLOYMENT (FIFE).

Mr. W. M. WATSON: 69.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of registered unemployed at the separate Unemployment Exchanges in the County

NUMBER of Insured Workpeople in certain Industries recorded as Unemployed at Employment Exchanges in the County of Fife at 24th January, 1927.


—
Coal Mining.
Textile Industries.
Dock, Wharf; Canal etc. Service.
Building Trade.
Other Industries.Total.


Anstruther
…
…
1
4
1
21
175
202


Auchtermuchty
…
…
5
77
1
15
73
171


Burntisland
…
…
—
3
82
13
268
366


Cowdenbeath
…
…
2,701
42
—
23
293
3,059


Cupar
…
…
15
5
1
43
91
155


Dunfermline
…
…
960
292
2
125
1,036
2,415


Inverkeithing
…
…
4
7
1
23
400
435


Kincardine
…
…
114
12
—
—
32
158


Kirkcaldy
…
…
2,346
62
24
182
832
3,446


Leslie
…
…
29
7
—
22
53
111


Leven
…
…
482
68
73
78
465
1,166


Newburgh
…
…
—
5
1
8
67
81


St. Andrews
…
…
1
1
—
38
86
126


Tayport
…
…
2
9
7
9
102
129


Total (Co. Fife)
…
6,660
594
193
600
3,973
12,020

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL MINING INDUSTRY.

DISASTERS (MONMOUTH AND NOTTINGHAM).

Mr. BARKER: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary for Mines whether he can give the House any information inconnection with the mining disaster at the Marine Colliery, Monmouthshire?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I greatly regret that I have to announce to the House that I have received the following information from the divisional inspector in Wales:
A disaster has taken place at the Marine Colliery, Monmouthshire, owned by the Ebbw Vale Steel, Iron, and Coal Co., Ltd. An explosion occurred about 1 o'clock this morning, but as yet the cause has not been ascertained. Two seams are involved, the Old Coal and the Black Vein. There are 23 men dead in the Old Coalfield, but before the Black Vein workings can be explored—and every effort is being made

of Fife, giving, as far as possible, the numbers of miners, textile workers, doekyard workers, building trade workers and labourers?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Betterton): As the reply includes a number of figures I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the statement:

to do this—large quantities of fire damp will have to be cleared. This is now being done. In the Black Vein there are known to be 28 men, and I am afraid there is little hope for them."

I think the House would wish me to add that I have also to announce that another disaster is reported from the Nottinghamshire coalfield. I had from the divisional inspector of that area, at noon to-day, the followng information relating to an accident at the Bilsthorpe Sinking of the Stanton Iron Works Company, Limited, Nottingham:
At 3.30 this morning the pipes delivering water to the surface from the pumps in the shaft collapsed, and fell down the shaft, which is 276 yards deep. There were 17 men working in the shaft bottom at the time. Three of these have been rescued, but I am afraid there is little hope for the remaining 14 men.

That is the latest information which has come through as to both these disasters
from the inspectors on the spot, but if Mr. Speaker will permit a special question to be put to-morrow at Question Time, I will give the House the latest information that has then come from the divisional inspectors in both cases.

Mr. HARDIE: That is your reorganisation scheme! You are killing miners!

Mr. BARKER: I will renew my question to-morrow.

MINERS OVER 60.

Mr. ALLEN PARKINSON: 23.
asked the Secretary for Mines the number of miners now working between the ages of 60 and 65 years, 65 to 70 years, and over 70 years, respectively, in or about the coal mines of Great Britain?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The latest information is that obtained from the Decennial Census of Population of 1921, when 3.2 per cent. of the men employed in the coalmining industry were between 60 and 65, 2 per cent. between 65 and 70, and 0.7 per cent. 70 or over.

BOYS (HOURS).

Sir ROBERT NEWMAN: 24.
asked the Secretary for Mines the maximum hours, per day and per week young persons under the age of 16 years are employed underground in mines; and what is the youngest age at which these young persons are allowed to be thus employed?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: In coal mines the maximum hours allowed by law are the same for boys as for adults: that is to say they may not be below ground during any consecutive 24 hours for more than eight hours, exclusive of winding times. No maximum on a, weekly basis is prescribed. The minimum age at which a boy may be employed underground is 14 years.

ACCIDENTS.

Mr. D. GRENFELL: 25.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether the Returns of serious and fatal accidents since the general resumption of work in December are available for the first two months?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: From the beginning of December, 1926, to the end of January, 1927, 173 persons were killed and 793 seriously injured at mines under the Coal Mines Acts.

Mr. LUNN: Is the right hon. Gentleman able to state the increase in accidents in coal mines as a result of the passing of the Eight Hours Act?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I could not say—

Mr. SPEAKER: That is a question which cannot be answered without notice.

MINING INDUSTRY ACT, 1926.

Mr. HARDIE: 26.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether any part of the Reorganisation of Mines Act has been applied in any mining area?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I presume the hon. Member refers to the Mining Industry Act, 1926, but I do not quite follow his question. The provisions of that Act, with one or two exceptions, automatically applied to all mining areas as soon as it became law.

Mr. HARDIE: If there is any sincerity in the Government how is it that wheelless trucks are still being used in coal mines in Somersetshire and the men made into beasts of burden by having to draw these trucks in an almost naked state?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I could give an answer to any question of the hon. Member if he will give me proper notice. The question he has now asked does not seem to me to have anything to do with the question on the Paper.

Mr. HARDIE: The question on the Paper is what I am asking now. What I want to know is whether any part of the reorganisation proposals have been put into effect?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am in a position to answer any question of which the hon. Member gives me notice, but it is quite out of accordance with the precedents of the House that on a not very clear question on the Paper a number of specific supplementary questions should be asked.

Mr. HARDIE: The question is on the Paper.

COKE OVENS.

Mr. HARDIE: 27.
asked the Secretary for Mines, if there is a shortage of metallurgical coke; how many coke ovens are at work and how many idle; and what amount of coke was imported during the month of January, 1927?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I know there is a shortage in some districts, but I cannot say how many coke ovens are at work and how many are idle. The quantity of coke, other than gas coke, imported during January, 1927, was 17,000 tons.

Mr. HARDIE: Is it not the fact that a record of the ovens blown in and blown out is obtained week after week, and why cannot we get a return of these figures before the end of the month?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: They are not given week by week, but if the hon. Member will put down a question I will tell him exactly what records are obtained. Certain records of the iron and steel trade are obtained but the hon. Member will appreciate the fact that they only cover about 40 per cent. of the coke ovens. There is no record of the total number of coke ovens.

Mr. HARDIE: Is it not the fact that in answer to a previous question I got the number of coke ovens that were working and the number that were idle; it was given me in a very short time.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: From time to time a special and lengthy inquiry is made in order to ascertain facts. I have no doubt that, the hon. Member having put his question, a, careful inquiry was made of the whole country.

Mr. HARDIE: A reply was given in three days.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: That shows how efficient the department is. I suggest to the hon. Member that it is not a happy moment at which to put a question in view of the long stoppage that has occurred, as it takes time to put coke ovens into order, and the number is increasing each day. A census taken now would not be at all useful.

Mr. HARDIE: As there was such great efficiency in the department at the time I asked my last question, how is it that there has been such a degeneration since?

Oral Answers to Questions — MOTOR TRAFFIC.

SPOT-LIGHTS.

Colonel DAY: 28.
asked the Minister of Transport if he will consider legalizing
motor spot-lights, with a view to greater safety being afforded motorists, especially during foggy weather?

Colonel ASHLEY: I am considering this question in connection with the Bill for the regulation of traffic on roads.

Captain BRASS: Will my right hon. Friend also consider the question of dipping and swivelling headlights?

Colonel ASHLEY: All relevant considerations will be taken into consideration.

Sir F. MEYER: Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries as to the use of spot lights in France and other places abroad?

Colonel ASHLEY: I will do so. I have made some, but I will make further inquiries.

Mr. R. MORRISON: Is the right hon. Gentleman in a position to say when the Bill to which he has referred will be ready for hon. Members?

Colonel ASHLEY: Very shortly.

Colonel DAY: Is it not the fact that this is the only country where spot lights are not allowed?

Colonel ASHLEY: I could not say.

MUD-SPLASHERS.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: 33.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he will consider the advisability of introducing legislation for the purpose of enforcing the use of mud-splashers on motor vehicles generally, but with special reference to commercial vans and lorries?

Colonel ASHLEY: No anti-splash device has been brought to my notice, which has been found sufficiently effective, under practical conditions, to justify the introduction of legislation, or the issue of Regulations, making the use of such devices compulsory.

LICENCES.

Mr. SHORT: 32.
asked the Minister of Transport the total number of licences issued in respect of motor vehicles, private and commercial, during 1926?

Colonel ASHLEY: I am sending the hon. Member a copy of a statement which was issued to the Press a short time ago,
and which gives the information he asks for.

BRITISH BROADCASTING CORPORATION (HIGH-POWER STATIONS).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 35.
asked the Postmaster-General whether the British Broadcasting Corporation has decided on its policy with regard to the building of high-power stations in order to provide alternative programmes all over the country; if so, how far the work has progressed; has he been consulted as to this policy; and, if so, what has been the Government opinion expressed?

The POSTMASTER.GENERAL (Sir William Mitchell—Thomson): I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Blackburn on the 15th February. The present position is that the British Broadcasting Corporation are arranging to carry out certain experiments, and when these are concluded they may be in a position to submit proposals.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May I have an answer to the last part of my question, in regard to Government policy?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: In this matter the Government can form no opinion until they have seen the result of the experiments.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

TELEPHONE SERVICE, LINDSEY.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: 37 and 38.
asked the Postmaster-General (1) how many villages in the county of Lindsey are without telephone call boxes; and what steps he is taking to provide them;
(2) the total number of telephone Ball boxes and telephones recently installed in the county of Lindsey; and how many have been withdrawn?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I will answer these two questions together. I regret that the statistics asked for in the first question are not available. I will certainly examine the question of extending telephone call office facilities to any which my hon. and gallant
Friend may have in mind. With regard to the second question, no telephone.area coincides exactly with the county of Lindsey, and accordingly precise figures are not to hand. The following returns relate to an area which includes almost the whole of the county of Lindsey, and one or two places outside:



Installed during year ended 31st December 1926.
Ceased during year ended 31st December, 1926.


Call Offices
9
2


Other telephone stations
1,603
638

Major COLFOX: Would my right hon. Friend say what conditions require to be fulfilled in order to justify the putting in of a call box?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Conditions vary in different localities.

Captain CROOKSHANK: Will my right hon. Friend also consider the advisability of putting call boxes at country railway stations in Lindsey?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I am not aware that any additional facilities are required at railway stations.

POSTAL ORDERS (CROSS-WORD PUZZLES).

Mr. BETHEL: 39.
asked the Postmaster-General if he will state the number of 1s. postal orders issued in Manchester in December, 1926; and if he can state the approximate number that were used in connection with cross-word puzzle competitions?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I regret that the information is not available as regards the whole of Manchester without 'entailing considerable labour; but the number of 1s. postal orders issued there at the head and branch Post Offices only, during December, was 13,940. I am afraid I have no means of ascertaining how many of these 1s. postal orders were used in connection with cross-word puzzle competitions.

Mr. BETHEL: 40.
asked the Postmaster-General the cost of the special provision made for dealing with letters in connection with cross-word puzzle competitions in Glasgow, London and Manchester, and
the approximate number of letters delivered in connection with these competitions in the six months ending 31st December, 1926?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: No record is kept of the numbers of the letters to which my hon. Friend refers or of the cost of dealing with them. It may, however, interest him to know that the estimated number of letters sent in connection with competitions of all kinds to addresses in the East Central and West Central Districts of London during the month of January was approximately 13,000,000. There is no reason to suppose that the postage does not cover costs.

BETTING DUTY.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: 41.
asked the Postmaster-General if he can state the loss in revenue involved during the three months ending 31st January, 1927, through the disuse of telephones and telegrams since the introduction of the Betting Duty and the consequent decrease of business experienced by licensed bookmakers?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: As I stated on 30th November, in reply to a similar question by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, I have no data upon which to form any precise estimate of the effect of the Betting Duty on telegraph or telephone traffic. All I can say is that there has been no appreciable effect upon telegraph or telephone revenue.

CYPRUS (TAXATION).

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 44.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the tithe and works systems of taxation still continue in Cyprus; and, if so, whether he will inquire as to whether the benefit of the alterations proposed for Palestine might usefully be extended to Cyprus also?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for COLONIAL AFFAIRS (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): The tithe has been abolished, but the property tax to which the right hon. Member refers still continues. No proposals for the alteration of the Palestine Property Tax have yet reached me, and until they do it is not possible for me to answer the second part of the question.

IMPERIAL DEFENCE.

Mr. W. BAKER: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether, seeing that, according to the latest available figures, the contribution per head of the white population towards the defence of the Empire ranged from 53s. 8d. in Great Britain and Northern Ireland to 5s. 6d. in Canada, he will table this subject for discussion at the next Imperial Conference?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I have been asked to reply. It is somewhat premature at present to consider the agenda for the next Imperial Conference, but, as the hon. Member is no doubt aware, the discussion of questions relating to defence invariably form a considerable part of the work of the Conference. In this connection I would invite reference to pages 34 to 37 of the Summary of Proceedings of the Imperial Conference of 1926 (Cmd. 2768), and pages 159 to 192 of the Appendices (Cmd. 2769).

STATE INSURANCE AND PENSIONS (ADMINISTRATION).

Mr. ROBINSON: 46.
asked the Prime Minister if he will consider the desirability of establishing a Ministry of Social Insurance which should deal with health and pension insurance, unemployment insurance, the payment of Civil Service pensions, and the award of service and disability pensions in respect of service in the forces, in view of the possibility of effecting economy by this co-ordination of social pension service?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Churchill): The whole problem of the distribution of the business of Government Departments is constantly under review; and His Majesty's Government would not hesitate to adopt any scheme of reorganisation which might be expected to lead to greater efficiency and economy of administration. But such schemes, if they are be successful, must be introduced at the right moment; and whatever view might be taken of the advantages of the particular rearrangement suggested in the hon. Member's question, I do not think that changes could profitably be contemplated at the present time, in the existing pressure of public business.

INCOME TAX (BACHELORS).

Colonel DAY: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that there are approximately 2,000,000 bachelors in Great Britain; and will he consider introducing legislation that will nave as its object the taxation of all bachelors over the age of 25 years?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The hon. Member will not expect me to anticipate the Budget Statement.

Mr. SNOWDEN: Will the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration the fact that the Income Tax system already differentiates very much against bachelors?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes, Sir. It would seem that in the event of it being decided to tax the bachelor further, certainly it would be for consideration whether, in the event of his being found to have an accomplice in this mal-practice, the burden should be shared.

Sir PARK GOFF: If this national injustice cannot be cured in any way, in the interests of humanity will my right hon. Friend consider an age limit?

TREASURY NOTES.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir ALAN BURGOYNE: 48.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the new Treasury notes are to be issued; and whether they differ in size and design from those now in circulation?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am not aware of any intention to adopt a new design for Treasury notes, though a slight change in the wording will be necessary when legislative sanction has been given to the change in style adopted by the Imperial Conference.

FOREIGN FILMS.

Sir CHARLES OMAN: 49.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what were the registered imports into Great Britain and Northern Ireland during the year 1926 of American films, including both positives, pictures ready for exhibition, and negatives, photographs from which positives can be printed; what was the declared value of them; and what profit came from their import to the Exchequer?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The registered imports into Great Britain and Northern Ireland, during the year 1926 of positive and negative cinematograph films consigned from the United States of America amounted to 13,610,164 linear feet of a declared value of £813,879. No information is available as to the amount of Customs duty which has been paid in respect of such of these films as have been delivered for home use.

Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: 51.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the fact that £600,000 could be obtained by levying Income Tax on the amounts paid to film producers abroad, he will consider the advisability of imposing this tax?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the final sentence of the reply which I gave him on the 24th February. To this I have at present nothing to add.

Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Would the right hon. Gentleman not consider the advisability of taxing this, as over £3,000,000 is paid to America alone; and, in view of the burden which falls upon us in the payment of debt to America, has he not considered this as a legitimate subject of taxation?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I cannot anticipate the Budget statement, but I will consider this and all other matters.

COINAGE (DECIMAL SYSTEM).

Mr. HANNON: 50.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has received representations from certain trade organisations on behalf of a proposal that the shilling should be divided into ten pence; if he is aware that this proposal has received the approval of the Trade Union Congress and the General Federation of Trade Unions; and if the recent arguments in support of the suggestion will receive his sympathetic consideration?

Mr. CHURCHILL: My right hon. Friends the President of the Board of Trade and the Financial Secretary recently received a deputation from the Trade Union Congress on this subject. It was explained to the deputation that this proposal, which is far from being a
new one, is, like other schemes for altering the value of the penny, open to many grave objections pointed out by the Majority of the Royal Commission on Decimal Coinage (Command Paper 628).

Captain GARRO-JONES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, if this suggestion were adopted, the only result would be that we would pay one-tenth of a shilling for everything for which we now pay one penny?

MOTOR-CAR HIDES (DUTY).

Mr. REMER: 52.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that motor-car hides are being imported free of duty; and if he will take steps to see that this duty is collected in accordance with the Finance Act?

Mr. CHURCHILL: If the motor-car hides to which my hon. Friend refers are unshaped hides for use in the upholstery of motor cars, they are not chargeable with motor-car duty as they are not identifiable on importation as component parts of a motor car.

Mr. REMER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the motor-ear hide is very different from any other form of hide; and is he also aware that there is great hardship among the manufacturers of these hides in this country, causing serious unemployment?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The principle is that the article which is to bear duty must be definitely identifiable as a part of the motor car, and it follows that it must not be capable of being used for other purposes.

Mr. REMER: If I send the right hon. Gentleman samples of these things and prove to him that they are definitely identifiable, will he take steps to see that the matter is dealt with?

CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (TAXATION).

Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: 53.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has any information with regard to the invested reserves of cooperative societies; and what amount
could be derived from them if they were taxed in the same way as ordinary businesses?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Particulars of the capital investments of co-operative societies will be found in the Annual Reports of the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies. The figure of £100,000 which I gave in reply to my hon. and gallant Friend's question on the 17th February as the estimated gain of tax if co-operative societies were charged in the same way as other businesses was computed on the assumption that their investment income as well as the gain on their mutual trading would be charged to tax. I may add that in considering this figure of £100,000 in relation to the surplus shown by co-operative societies after payment of discount, it must be borne in mind that the societies pay out a large amount of interest on share capital on which the Exchequer receives at present the tax to which it is entitled, and that the amount on which the societies already pay tax under Schedules A and B has to be credited against any profits that would come under charge.

Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how much he is losing in respect of businesses which formerly paid Income Tax but which are now being taken over by the co-operative societies?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I dealt with that matter, if my memory serves me right, in an answer last week; and I should not be prepared to give any Estimate in answer to a Supplementary Question.

ELECTRICITY BOARD.

Mr. R. MORRISON: 56.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether the chairman of the Electricity Board is in receipt of superannuation from the Government post which he previously held; and, if so, the amount of the same?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Ronald McNeill): The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative.

SOCIETE IGENERALE HELLENIQUE.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 57.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether the guaranteed loan of £2,000,000 has yet been raised by the Societé Générale Hellenique?

Mr. McNEILL: Arrangements have been made for raising the whole loan by instalments as the money is required. I am informed that the amount raised to date is £375,000.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: With a view to protecting the interests of the British taxpayers, will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries, either from the Societé Hellenique or from the Greek Government, as to whether any change is desirable in that guarantee, having regard to the opposition at Athens to the proposals of the Societé Hellenique?

Mr. McNEILL: I think that question really covers the same ground as the question which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman put the other day, and to which I replied that this loan has been sanctioned by the present Government and confirmed by the Assembly. In these circumstances I think it is impossible for us to question its validity.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Would it not be possible for the right hon. Gentleman to make inquiries to ensure that the interests of the British taxpayers are being looked after.

Mr. McNEILL: Yes, but I am not sure that the making of such inquiries might not lead to misunderstanding.

Sir FREDRIC WISE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say if this loan will be offered to the public?

Mr. McNEILL: I cannot say without notice. I do not know.

POLICE FORCE (STRENGTH).

Mr. SHORT: 59.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the establishment of the police force on 31st December, 1925, and 1926, respectively?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARPMENT (Captain Hacking): The nearest date for which exact figures are available is 28th Septem-
ber. On this date in 1925 the total authorised establishment of all forces in England and Wales was 57,043 and the actual strength 54,354. On the corresponding date in 1926 the figures were 57,089 and 55,659.

NORTHERN IRELAND LAND ACT, 1926.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: 60.
asked the Home Secretary, in regard to the Northern Ireland Land Act, 1926, the number of estates in Northern Ireland where sale has been completed by the 1st November, 1926; the number where sale had been completed up to date; the number of estates for which the money had been lodged in Court; the number of estates from which the money has been paid; the number of estates in which the bonus has been paid; and, if there is any delay, will he ascertain the cause of it and take steps to have payment expedited?

Captain HACKING: The question does not state the procedure quite accurately. The number of estates vested in the Land Purchase Commission under the new Act by the 1st November was 147, and up to date is 235. Bonds representing the purchase money on 130 estates have been brought to credit and the purchase money and bonus for 19 estates have been distributed. I might perhaps explain that before the purchase money can be allocated a careful examination of the title to the estate, often involving much time and labour, has to be conducted and rulings thereon issued to owners' solicitors who have to satisfy requirements of the Commission. Titles have been read and rulings issued in 117 estates. All possible steps are being taken by the Commission to expedite the work, and my right hon. Friend has under consideration proposals recently made by them for securing this end.

DODECANESE (MRS. TILIAKOS).

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 64.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Vice-Consul at Rhodes himself visited Kalymnos in order to acquaint himself with the Tiliakos affair?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: The answer is in the negative. His Majesty's Vice-
Consul was, however, instructed to take the matter up with the Governor of Rhodes, from whom he obtained the information, subsequently confirmed by His Majesty's Ambassador in Rome, upon which my right hon. Friend's previous reply on 16th February was based. The results of my right hon. Friends inquiries were communicated to Mr. Tiliakos on the 17th December and no further communication has been received from him. My right hon. Friend regards the incident as closed.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Does the hon. Gentleman consider, having in view the nature of the complaint, that to make inquiries from the Italian Government at Rhodes or at Rome was the best way to find out the true facts of the case?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I think we did find out all the facts. Compensation was offered to this lady and full apologies were made and she refused compensation. I believe that now she is absolutely satisfied with what has been done.

Oral Answers to Questions — POOR LAW.

SWAFFIELD ROAD WORKHOUSE, WANDSWORTH.

Colonel DAY: 65.
asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the dead body of an inmate, who died in one of the wards of Swaffield Road Workhouse, Wandsworth, was left unshrouded from 8.40 a.m. to 1.30 p.m. recently, notwithstanding the fact that a number of old, people in the ward, some of whom were more than 85 years of age, were served with dinner whilst the corpse was thus exposed; and will he cause an inquiry to be held into the whole matter of administration at the institution mentioned?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): My right hon. Friend has made inquiries in this case and finds that although there was a certain amount of delay in providing a suitable shroud, the body was decently covered throughout and the bed was properly screened. He understands that the guardians are already engaged in a full inquiry into the administration of the infirmary wards of their institution.

COAL TRADE DISPUTE (COST OF RELIEF)

Mr. VIANT: 67.
asked the Minister of Health whether in view of the services performed in the relief of destitution during the recent coal dispute being national in character, and that the early liquidation of the debts incurred is of urgency to and to the benefit of the nation as a whole, he will recommend that financial assistance be given by the Treasury to those unions which have had to bear the cost?

Sir K. WOOD: For the reasons which my right hon. Friend stated to the House at length in the debate on the address on 11th February, he is not prepared to recommend that specific Exchequer assistance should be given in aid of Poor Law expenditure.

Mr. THURTLE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a precedent has already been created in this respect by the grant made to Scotland?

Sir K. WOOD: No doubt we shall be able to debate that matter this evening.

HOUSING (STATISTICS).

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: 66.
asked the Minister of Health the number of houses built under the Housing Acts in England and Wales by municipalities and by private enterprise during the six months ended 31st December, 1926, and, for comparison, the corresponding figures for the half-yearly periods ended on 30th June, 1926, and 31st December, 1925, respectively?

Sir K. WOOD: The numbers of houses built in England and Wales under the Housing Acts during the six months ended 31st December, 1926, were 37,820 by local authorities, and 43,958 by private enterprise. The corresponding figures for the half years ended 30th June, 1626, and 31st December, 1925, were 30,684 and 32,157; and 21,624 and 33,580 respectively.

FIJI (BACTERIOLOGICAL RESEARCH).

Mr. W. BAKER: 43.
asked the Secretary of State fox the Colonies the expenditure on bacteriological work in Fiji for the last complete year for which figures are available?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The figures desired are not shown separately in the published accounts of the Colony. I am asking the Governor whether the figures can readily be given.

GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (COAL PURCHASES).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 55.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury how many Departments of the Government purchase their supplies of coal separately, which these Departments are, and how the other Departments purchase their coal; and what was the total amount of coal purchased on behalf of His Majesty's Government during 1925 and 1926?

Captain HACKING (for The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS): I have been asked to reply. Each of the three Service Departments (Admiralty, War Office, and Air Ministry) make their own arrangements for the purchase of coal. The purchase of coal in respect of Civil Departments generally is made by the Office of Works, with a few minor exceptions due to special circumstances.
The total amount of coal purchased on behalf of His Majesty's Government during 1925 and 1926 was 1,459,000 tons and 1,262,000 tons, respectively.
In addition, during the coal emergency in 1926, the Mines Department, which normally does not buy any coal, purchased 1,927,931 tons for issue to small public utility undertakings and other essential services.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if his attention has been drawn to the reply just given to a question put to his Department, and has he observed that we have at least four Departments purchasing coal, and probably competing against each other, and does he not think that this is a great opportunity for saving money?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I was under the impression that the purchases of coal had been made in an entirely businesslike manner, and -with very great advantage to the public.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is is not obvious that there must be greater efficiency if one buying Department purchased for all these Departments?

Mr. PALING: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the experiment of purchasing a coal mine?

BRITISH-BORN GERMAN NATIONALS (PROPERTY).

Lord HENRY CAVENDISHBENTINCK: 10.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is prepared to advise that all property, rights, and interests belonging to British-born German nationals at the date when the Treaty of Versailles came into force should forthwith be released from the charge created by Section I (xvi) of the Treaty of Peace Order, 1919?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, Sir. I do not think this would be fair to British creditors and claimants, particularly in view of the considerable releases of property which already have been, and are being, made.

FOREIGN ENTERPRISE (TAXATION).

Brigadier-General CHARTERIS (for Lieut.-Colonel GADIE): 54.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, seeing that the American Government levy taxes on profits of British enterprise in America, including personal and professional earnings, he will consider the imposition of a like system of taxation upon foreign enterprise and profits in this country, including profits on films?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I have already answered questions dealing with this subject of the taxation of the profits of foreign enterprise in this country, and my hon. and gallant Friend must not be under the misapprehension that the profits of foreign and American enterprise in this country are not already subject to considerable rates of Income Tax.

Colonel DAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman also consider the taxation of foreign artistes' salaries over here, which are very large?

Mr. CHURCHILL: They are already the subject of taxation. I was surprised, on looking into them, to find what a comparatively small proportion of these profits escape the proper taxation.

Colonel DAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of these artistes come over here, appear for only two or three months, and go back to America with their salaries untaxed?

Captain GARRO-JONES: Is the right hon. Gentleman also aware that many artistes have left this country without paying their tax?

Mr. SPEAKER: This is more suitable for a Debate.

Oral Answers to Questions — BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTION.

WAGES IN SHELTERED AND UNSHELTERED INDUSTRIES.

Mr. KELLY: I beg to give notice that, on this day fortnight, I will call attention to the Discrepancy between the wages in sheltered and unsheltered industries, and the inadequacy of both amounts, and move a Resolution.

AGRICULTURE.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: I beg to give notice that, on this day fortnight, I will call attention to the question of Agriculture, and move a Resolution.

SUBVERSIVE PROPAGANDA.

Mr. GOODMAN ROBERTS: I beg to give notice that, on this day fortnight, I will call attention to Subversive Propaganda in these countries, and move a Resolution.

JUVENILE EMPLOYMENT.

Sir ROBERT NEWMAN: I beg to give notice that, on this day fortnight, I will call attention to Juvenile Employment, and move a Resolution.

BILLS PRESENTED.

ROADSIDE PETROL PUMPS BILL,

"to provide for the licensing of petrol pumps by highway authorities," presented by Sir FRANK MEYER; supported by Lieut.-Colonel Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Colonel Horlick, Captain Brass, and Sir Edward Iliffe; to be read a Second time upon Thursday, and to be printed. Bill 58.]

COAL (SELLING PRICE AGREEMENTS) BILL,

"to render illegal certain agreements as to the selling prices of coal," presented by Mr. NAYLOR; supported by Mr. Montague, Mr. Viant, Mr. Cluse, Dr. Salter, Mr. William Thorne, Mr. Thurtle, and Mr. Snell; to be read a second time upon Tuseday and to be printed. [Bill 59.]

UNFRIENDLY FOREIGN POWERS RECOGNITION.

The following Notice of Motion stood on, the Order Paper in the name of Mr. DIXEY
Bill to prevent the recognition by the Government of this country of the Government of any foreign Power that actively and admittedly encourages and incites hostile propaganda against this country both at home and in the Dominions.

Mr. SPEAKER: With regard to the notice, standing in the name of the hon. Member for Penrith and Cockermouth (Mr. Dixey), it has been brought to my notice that this proposal involves the Royal Prerogative. I shall have to ask the hon. Member if he has the Ring's Consent. He does not appear to have it.

URBAN DISTRICT COUNCILLORS ELECTION.

Mr. LOOKER: I beg to move,
That leave be given to introduce a Bill to alter the dates of elections of urban district councillors.
This Bill is a very simple Measure, and, as far as I know, has no controversial aspect about it. It is promoted by the Urban District Councils Association. The reasons for it are four in number, and I will deal with them in what appears to be the inverse order of their importance. The first is that the urban district council elections are held on the first Monday in April, or, if that is Easter Monday, then on the last Monday in March. It is considered very desirable on general grounds that there should be a fixed date, instead of a possibly varying date. The date desired is the 1st November. The second reason is that the register on which the elections take place comes into force on the 15th October, and the qualifying period is three months ending 1st June. If the
elections are held on the 1st November, as proposed by the Bill, they can be contested on a new Register, which, I think, must be recognised as more desirable than, on an old Register. At present the elections are contested on a Register which has, been in force for nearly six months, and which only contains the names of electors qualified 10 months prior to the election.
The third reason is that the urban district councils frame their estimates the months of February and March, and the elections are held very shortly after the estimates are framed. It is not desirable that the estimates should be framed and settled by a council of whom possibly one-third, and in the case of triennial elections a greater number, go out of existence immediately the estimates are fixed. It is better that they should be framed by a body which will not only have some responsibility for framing them, but have some personal experience of their actual working after they are framed. Perhaps the most important reason for the change proposed by this Bill is that there are throughout the country many Joint Boards and Joint Committees upon which representatives of borough councils and urban district councils sit. As the election of borough councils is on the 1st November, the constitution of these Joint Boards and Joint Committees necessarily gets changed at that time. As at present urban district council elections are held in April, it follows that six months after that disturbance, a number of urban district representatives on those Joint Boards also go out of office, so that the constitution of these Boards is liable to constant change throughout the period of the year in which they operate. I submit that it is clearly more desirable that the members of these Boards should not be liable to change at varying periods while holding office. It is much better that they should be able to attend to the business before them without changing their representatives throughout the whole of the year.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Looker, Lieut.-Colonel Heneage, Dr. Vernon Davies, and Mr. Thomas Williams.

URBAN DISTRICT COUNCILLORS- ELECTION BILL,

"to alter the dates of elections of urban district councillors," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to he printed. [Bill 60.]

Orders of the Day — POOR LAW EMERGENCY PROVISIONS (SCOTLAND) BILL.

As amended, considered.

CLAUSE 1.—(Relief to dependants of persons involved in trade dispute.)

The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. William Watson): I beg to move, in page 1, line 14, to leave out from the word "twenty-six" to the end of the Subsection.
This Amendment should be taken along with one on the Order Paper to Clause 4. As I explained when the Bill was in Committee, we considered Clause 3 as being a necessary part of the Emergency Legislation which was initiated in the Act of 1921, and in order to make quite clear the point that was raised the other day, that the whole matter, including Clause 3, should be open to reconsideration in 1930, it did seem to us better draftsmanship to make the whole Bill come under this limitation of 1030.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 3.—(Power to give relief on loan.)

Mr. JOHNSTON: I beg to move to leave out the Clause.
Since the debate on the Money Resolution took place, the Lord Advocate has put down an Amendment to delete the word "Alimentary," and to that extent he has minimised our opposition to this Clause; but I would still appeal to the Government to see whether they cannot meet the large body of opinion in Scotland and in this House which objects to the alteration of the Poor Law in Scotland, whereby the poor dealt with under the Act of 1845—the blind, the sick and the maimed—may be compelled as a condition of getting relief to sign a declaration that that relief is a loan. It will mean piling debt upon debt upon the most helpless section of our population in the hour of their greatest distress. There is no purpose in making this change. Most parish councils would refuse to operate the Clause. There may be one or two here and there who, for special reasons, will put this Clause into operation so far as the sick and the poor
and the blind are concerned, but I and many other Members of this House do not see why the Government should persist in retaining the Clause. It is not one germane to the main purpose of the Bill.

The LORD ADVOCATE indicated dissent.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Well, that is our opinion, though the Lord Advocate shakes his head. The main purpose of the Bill undoubtedly is, as it is stated in the Bill itself,
to enable relief to be given by way of loan, and to extend further the duration of the Poor Law Emergency Provisions (Scotland) Act, 1921.
It has nothing to do with the Act of 1845, and if, as appears to be the case, the Lord Advocate or the Secretary of State for Scotland has been compelled to insert this Clause as a sop, in order to get from the Treasury any money whatever for the relief of the embarrassed parish councils—embarrassed purely as a result of the action of the Scottish Board of Health—I trust that we may yet be able to persuade the fight hon. Gentleman to allow the Bill to go through without it.

Mr. STEWART: I beg to second the Amendment.
This Clause as it stands has not secured support from any part of the country; there has not been a single resolution On its behalf. Both those interested as ratepayers and those who are connected with the administration of the law have expressed their opposition to the proposal. To-day most Members have been favoured with a communication from the Glasgow Chamber of Commerce, a very influential body and a very representative body, and I would like to read what they have to say about this Clause. They say they do not favour the provisions of Clause 3
because they are of opinion that its operation would be costly, cumbrous and unworkable in practice, because of the impossibility of recovering loans in every case, the difficulty of doing so in many, and the unfairness of recovering in some cases and not in others; also because of the litigation which would be involved, and more especially because, in many cases, of the unreality of the whole transaction, which would obscure the real position and conceal poor relief under the cloak of a loan which, in fact, would in many cases not he recovered.
It is quite apparent to us all that if this goes on the result must be litigation. I know that many of those who receive the relief will not be in a position to repay the loan, but litigation will be started by the parish councils to demonstrate that if people incur the responsibility of accepting a loan they must pay it. It will be done to serve as a warning to others. As is said in this communication, it will cost more to regain the money than the expense is worth. I hope the Government will withdraw the Clause, which will do them no good, and will not help us in our difficulties.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: It is not necessary to dwell at length on this question to-day because it was dealt with so fully in Committee, but we wish to reinforce the protest made from this side of the House against the introduction of such a proposal into the Poor Law system of Scotland. If a claim for relief be justified, we submit there ought to be no question of any negotiations about a refund, much less any idea of the recipient being afterwards brought into Court. There is no doubt that in Scotland there is the strongest objection to the introduction of this proposal, which does not fit in with the main plan of the Bill. The Bill was brought forward to deal with the situation which arose through the Law Courts deciding that it was not legal to provide relief which had been given in certain cases on the instructions of the Board of Health. The Government were obliged to meet their obligations. We do not think they have fully discharged their obligations in the contribution they are offering, and in addition to disappointing us in that way they are introducing this proposal, in the face of Scottish opinion, and while at the same time telling us that in 1930 the whole question is to he opened up again and dealt with in an all-round fashion.

4.0.p.m.

Dr. DRUMMOND SHIELS: As far as I can see, this Clause represents an effort to carry to a logical conclusion the approximation of Scottish law to English law on this subject. The Lord Advocate almost suggested that when he was introducing the Bill, but, as has been pointed out before, while we are willing
to take anything good from England, we do not want to take anything bad, and this will be doing harm to Scotland and not good. The hon. Member for St. Rollox (Mr. Stewart) has shown that the objection to this Clause does not come from any one section of the people. The quotation he gave and the telegrams which many of us have received show that. I have one from a parish council in my own constituency objecting specifically to this provision. It has been suggested that this provision would in some way act as an inducement to parish councils to accept the heavier responsibility which the Government has placed upon them in this Bill, but these parish councils, composed of shrewd Scottish business men--not a great proportion of them Labour men—have come to the conclusion, purely on business grounds, I believe, that the proposal is not, a good one. It is obvious that it would appeal most to the more improvident of our population —people who do not mind what promises they make when they have no intention or hope of making them good—and that it would be a hardship on those who really would strive to repay the money which they had not in the form of a loan. I think the Government would be pleasing, not only hon. Members on this side of the House, but also a great many of their own supporters and the great bulk of the parish councils of Scotland, if they withdrew this part of the Bill.

Mr. BUCHANAN: On the last occasion when this matter was before the House the Secretary of State for Scotland did not seek to appose many of the points that were then put forward from these benches. In fact, he said that he agreed with a good deal of what had been said. His defence then was that the Clause was optional, that the parish councils in Scotland had no need to operate it and would only do so if they desired it to be done and that the whole experience in England was that the Clause was very rarely operated and that very few people suffered from it. If the Clause in England had raised so few objections and if, comparatively speaking, there had beer so few people get relief in this way, why force it against popular opinion and use it in Scotland? If it is going to be optional and if it
is not meant to be operated in Scotland, why should we have it introduced, especially as it is obvious, according to both statements from the Government Bench on the last occasion, that even they have no desire that the Bill should be operated in the way that we claim it might be operated. They say that they do not want people to be dragged into the Courts. If the Secretary of State for Scotland did not actually say that, that is the inference from what he said. "We do not," he said, "want people who are poor to be hauled into the Courts; we do not think it is good." Then why the Bill If he does not want people pursued because of this alleged loan, why this Clause in the Bill?
If the object is not that parish councils should grant relief by way of loan, then what on earth is the use of retaining the Clause as it is? Nobody wants it. The Chamber of Commerce, as my hon. Friend the Member for St. Rollox (Mr. Stewart) has shown, have protested against it, and the parish councils, in so far as they have been vocal, are hostile to it. Some of us meet members of the parish councils and in personal conversation we have found that each one we have met is hostile to this Clause. No one, so far as we can gather, is in any way in favour of it. Even the right hon. Gentleman himself says that the Clause is not meant to operate harshly against poor people. Then why, in face of this combination of reasons, in face of the hostile opinion of traders and labour people, a combination seldom seen in Scottish affairs, persist? It seems to me that the Clause ought to be withdrawn. The fact that it is optional is no plea at all. The right hon. Gentleman knows as well as I know—and I think this is the mind behind the Secretary of State for Scotland—that, although it is true that at the moment it is optional, it is optional only in the same respect as scales of relief are optional under the code of Regulations or Acts dealing with parish councils. Parish councils in Scotland can pay fairly high relief, but what in fact takes place is that the Secretary of State for Scotland issues a Circular giving them advice and its effect is to lessen and reduce the amount of relief paid. We legislate and we make the Bill optional, but after—and this is the mind behind the Bill—we get the Act we will by Circular refuse
loans and compel parish councils to operate the Clause and grant relief only on loan.
While the Bill is optional, the Scottish Board of Health know that when the heavily-rated districts that need loans come to them they can make conditions regarding loans, and they can make one of the conditions that the relief of poor people will be considered only if that relief be granted by way of loan. That is the only reason I can find behind the Bill. There is no other reason. Popular opinion has never asked for it; traders have never asked for it, and labour opinion has never asked for it. The parish councils, if they have given consent to it, have never made any popular demand for it. Even on the First and Second Reading of the Bill we had no Conservative Members making any speech in favour of it. The only reason I can find is that this so-called optional Clause will not be optional at all, but that the parish councils will be compelled to grant relief by way of loan. I hope that the Secretary of State for Scotland, even at this stage, will withdraw it. I have not any very great hope that he will do so, but I certainly hope that Members on these benches will do the only thing that they can do, and will register their protest against the Clause.

Mr. SULLIVAN: I think the Government have it in mind that this system of giving relief by way of loan will have the effect either of reducing or hindering relief in some shape or form. A certain section of our people will take any amount of money that they can get by way of loan or otherwise. They have no scruples whatever. They have no intention of paying and no law that you can make will ever compel them to pay, because they have not the means with which to pay. Then there is another section of our people who are hard-working and thrifty. They will scruple to go near a parish council or a board of guardians. They have conscientious scruples and they want to pay their way and do not want to be in debt. But in time of need they may be compelled to go to the parish council, and in that case they will be obliged to guarantee repayment. In the first case, the parish councils will not take the people into Court because they will know that they can recover
nothing, but in the second case they will be able to make the life of those people almost a hell by suing them for the recovery of the money. In other words, you are only following out an old Tory principle of penalising thrift, and we want to make it quite clear to the people who send us here and the people who sent you here that this is your policy and is not our's. It is admitted that this 'scheme has not worked well in England, and it is in the mind of hon. Members of the House that when the Poor Law administration is overhauled an alteration will will be made, but you are turning this system on to the Scottish people knowing quite well that it will not work and that in three years' time you will be most anxious to scrap it. We therefore appeal to you to drop the Bill. I have a notion that appealing to you does not mean much, because you have made up your minds. I have a feeling that we on this side of the House appeal too much to Members of the Government. It should be our policy to let people know the differences between the two parties, and to leave you to the judgment of the country when you require to meet them at the election.

Mr. STEPHEN: I wish to join in the protest that has been made with regard to this Clause, and there is just one thing that I would like to suggest to the Secretary of State for Scotland. He might get one of his friends behind him to consult the first three Conservative Members from Scotland and ask them their opinion on the matter. I believe that the majority opinion of those three Scottish Members would be in favour of the acceptance of the proposal from this side of the House that he should drop the Clause. I do not think that he can tell us of any specific, parish councils that have come to him and suggested that there should be this alteration in the Scottish law. I also want to emphasise what has been said with regard to the point that this Clause is bound to operate in the future, so far as repayments are made, against people whom one is most anxious to help, people who do not want to come for assistance in any way at all, and who, when they try to get out of their difficulties, will be faced with this attempt to pay up a debt that has been incurred. On Friday there
is a Moneylenders Bill coming before the House, and I would urge the Secretary of State for Scotland not to introduce this sort of moneylenders' business into our Scottish Poor Law. There has been a consensus of opinion of the most diverse temperaments against this Clause and the experience in England is against it. I am told by some English Members that people are still being hauled before the Courts in connection with debts incurred in 1921. I do appeal to the Secretary of State for Scotland to seek the opinion of three Scottish Members among his own supporters, and I venture to say that at least two of them will say, "Drop the Clause." I do not believe that the right hon. Gentleman opposite who represents the Treasury would object very seriously, because it would not interfere with the Income Tax or anything like that. The Lord Advocate in the future may be an officer of the Government, and it would lighten his labours if this Clause were left out, and as we are anxious to make things as comfortable for him as possible, I suggest that the Government should grant our request. After the last discussion we had on this subject, the Government agreed to make some improvement. What is the good of spoiling a thing which might otherwise be very good I The parish councils are thoroughly against proposal, and both business and working-class interests are against it because it is going to be a burden on very decent people, who are trying to get out of difficulties caused by unemployment and who are seeking to make as much out of life as possible.

Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: I wish to press the argument from the point of view of public policy. As I understand it, an attempt has been made here to assimilate Scottish law to English law as far as possible. I have been very much struck with the correspondence which has come to me, first of all, with its representative character and, secondly, with its unanimity. This proposal is not desired by our Scottish parishes and I think the reason is very obvious. It is said that this is a purely optional Clause, but there is no word more abused in this House in connection with legislation than the word "optional" What does it mean? It means that this House hands over absolutely the power to do certain things to certain bodies. Sometimes they are
public bodies, as in this case, and sometimes they are private individuals, as in the case of the Miners Eight Hours Bill. When that power is handed over, this House ceases to influence the decision of those bodies. When this Clause is passed, however optional it may be, every parish council can impose these conditions upon every penny it gives. This Bill gives those bodies the optional right to judge case by case.
What happens is this. From John o'Groats to the Solway Firth you have a tremendous variety of parish councils. Some of them are what the Secretary of State for Scotland would call very advanced, and some I would call very reactionary. Of course we politicians can fight as much as we like about our varying political opinions, but I am sure we shall not fight about this point: that it is absolutely essential, in matters like this, that we should have uniformity of public administration. If a neighbour of mine in one parish lives on one side of the road and another neighbour lives on the other side of the road in another parish, they should both be on terms of absolute equality. I think the Secretary of State will agree with me that by this Clause he is introducing a variety of administration between parish and parish. That is not all, because he is producing another injustice. There are two condiditions,(a) and (b). Under condition (a), if a man or a woman gives a receipt that is tantamount to an acquiescence. Sometimes I have given a receipt myself when I did not really wish to do so, but there was a condition I had to accept or reject and I came to the conclusion that the balance was in favour of my doing what I was not wishing to do and which I thought was unfair that I should be asked to do. If a person's name is put on the receipt, I agree it may fairly be argued there is acquiescence. Under condition (b) however, there is no attempt to give acquiescence at all. Condition (b) provides that
a notification in writing that the relief is so provided shall have been given to such person.
A recipient does not require to acquiesce. He may know perfectly well that he may never be in a position to repay the loan, and he may receive that notice and put it into his pocket knowing perfectly well that, as far as he can
humanly and honestly say, it will be for ever quite outside the possibility of his paying back that loan. Surely it is very bad from the point of view of public policy and principle, that relief applied for, a case having been made out, is, handed to the applicant under a condition which he does not hesitate to accept but which he knows he will never be able to fulfil. That is not fair. I think I am putting a very reasonable and logical case, and I do not think the Secretary of State for Scotland disputes my fact. I think these proposals do damage to the-Scottish law which we all hold in much reverence. This Measure is going to introduce a number of inconsistencies, and I ask the House not to insist upon including Clause 3 in the Bill.

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir John Gilmour): I am sure the House will agree with me when I say that the tone with which we have discussed this Measure is perhaps the most satisfactory method of approaching these differences between Scotsmen. I cannot accept the proposals that 1he Government should drop this Clause_ Indeed, if any real reason were required, the speech which the Leader of the Opposition has just made surely supplies the-argument. The right hon. Gentleman said that, whatever problem or points we might disagree upon, there was one thing which we were quite clear about, and that is that we must have uniformity of administration. Is that not the real reason why this Bill is brought before the House at all? If you are to have uniformity of administration, why stop at the border line between England and Scotland, where the same overriding power of the Government and the administration of the Government Departments are common to both countries? The argument has been advanced that with parish council administration you must have variations between parish councils. Is it not a fundamental part of the whole administration of parish councils that they must judge each individual case upon its merits? When hon. Members say to me that the fact that money is advanced to individual A or B and that it is impossible to recover money from A or B, surely that is presuming that the council have not taken into account the circumstances of the individuals with whom they are dealing. It is quite clear that it is
the elementary duty of the parish councils to consider each case upon its merits, and, if the parish councils are satisfied either that it is right and proper that an individual should receive an advance without any conditions of repayment or that he is capable of repaying a certain proportion of it, that is for them to judge. The circumstances under which relief was given to dependants of those engaged in this industrial dispute has caused this alteration in Scottish law, and it is no use hon. Members saying that we can leave the thing as it is, because that is not possible.
Clearly, if we are to have uniformity, we must come as near as we can to the method of administration which is in force across the border. If we are to get this one advantage for those dependants, we must accept the restrictions which are imposed upon the administration of this work across the border. I am interested to know that many of these bodies have been approaching Members of this House and have been using arguments without —I feel certain—accurate knowledge of what it implies. I am justified at least in saying that the representative individuals who speak for the parish councils in Scotland accept this principle of loan. I am surprised to hear that such a body as the Glasgow Chamber of Commerce, who have been quoted as being against this principle of loans, should have so little considered the position of the ratepayers, because the principle which we are extending to Scotland of relief to the de pendants is the necessary safeguard to the ratepayers which exists in England. It has been repeated in this House that this recovery has not worked in England, but that is a fallacy. The real truth is that, while this principle of advancing on loan has not in the main been used for ordinary relief, and will not be used for ordinary relief, in Scotland—

Mr. JOHNSTON: What is the need for the Bill, then?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I will explain—it has been used in certain cases for that purpose, and it has been used appreciably and largely for just such difficulties as faced the country in 1921 and in this last period. When hon. Members say that no appreciable amount is recoverable, my information is quite the contrary. A large
and appreciable amount has been recovered, and is being recovered. One hon. Member said that there are people who were concerned in the 1921 dispute who are still being asked to pay; but is not that just one of the clear evidences that, in working this Measure in England, those people are given time in which to repay, and that they are not pursued harshly? [Interruption.] Really, hon. Members seem to forget that there is a real and fair opportunity to give this relief on loan and for recovery on behalf of a very overburdened class of the community, namely, the general ratepayers of this country. If any further argument were required, it is, I think, perfectly clear that this Bill brings the advantages, such as they are—and it is admitted that they are advantages—that England has for the relief of dependants, but that brings exactly, or as nearly as we may interpret it, the same restrictions which apply to England when relief is given to dependants in this way. The Bill, as my right hon. Friend the Lord Advocate has explained, is a purely temporary Measure, and leaves the whole matter to be reconsidered in view of a problem which, as everyone in this House knows, is likely to come under review within the next two or three years, namely, the general recasting of the Poor Law in this country. In these circumstances, it is quite clear that the Government must retain Clause 3, and I must resist the Amendment.

Mr. JOHNSTON: The Secretary of State for Scotland promised to tell the House why it is that, in the case of recipients of Poor Law relief under the Act of 1845—not miners' dependants at all—he is still retaining them under Clause 3, although, according to his own admission, that part of the Clause is not to he operative.

Sir J. GILMOUR: I think that anyone who knows the general problem of administration in this matter will realise that an individual may at one time be in one class and then, owing to certain circumstances which have arisen, he may be transferred to another class—out of the 1845 class into the 1921 class, or vice versa. Circumstances arise which make it imperative that this machinery should be extended to cover that. I may add that this was arrived at after careful discussion with the representatives of the
parish councils themselves, and we deliberately came to the conclusion that it was essential, if this was to be extended, that it should cover all three.

Mr. HARDIE: In speaking of the question of uniformity, to which reference was made by the Leader of the Opposition, I think the Secretary of State, for Scotland went somewhat astray in his argument; probably the northern logic was rather too deep for the western. While the Secretary of State for Scotland may try to get away from the argument by saying that each case has to be taken on its merits, what the Leader of the Opposition was pointing out was that you might have a road dividing two parishes, and on one side of the road you might have an up-to-date parish which put this option into action, while on the other side the opposite might be the case, so that on the one side of the road persons might be getting relief without being compelled or even asked to repay, while on the other side of the road this option was being put into operation. The ratepayer in each case is faced with the same responsibility. It is no use the Secretary of State for Scotland or anyone else making such a statement as has been made to-day unless he wants to admit that he has no knowledge of the actual facts. The fact to-day is that, wherever the poverty reaches the point at which it goes beyond a loan, it becomes a matter for the ratepayer, but where it is considered that repayment of a loan can be made, then the risk of not getting that repayment is so great that the ratepayer stands to lose either way; I do not see where it can be argued that he is going to escape. As regards leaving anything to option, we have seen what has happened in recent legislation in this House. Optional Bills have been passed, such as the one for the reorganisation of the mines, so called, but nothing at all has taken place in relation to re- organisation of the mines, and nothing at all will take place in this case, because the Scottish parish councils have their own system, and this is one of the things which parish councils have never been up against.
I do not like repetition in this House, but when questions are put to responsible Ministers and are not answered, it does
lead to repetition. On the last two days of the Debate on this Bill I asked a specific question to which I have not had an answer. It was this: Since parish councils in Scotland, before they give relief, inspect the home and find out what the income is, if there be any, I want to know if those who have brought in this Measure have considered what is to be the standard of income in a house that has received a loan or loans, before process begins for the recovery of the amount. Is it to be the same basis of income that prevents the parish councils of Scotland from giving relief? Is it to be represented by so much per child according to their ages, with so much added for the father and mother? Or is it to be a question of the valuation of their furniture or household goods? On what basis are you going to establish the right of the parish council, or whatever authority is going to take action for recovery? What is the income to be in that case? Let the House recollect that, on the last day on which we debated this Bill, English Members from mining areas pointed out that, if process took place in these cases, it would bring those proceeded against nearer and nearer the day when they would have to go again to the Board of Guardians to get relief, owing to the state of poverty to which they would be reduced by the attempt to recover from them what had already been given as relief in the form of a loan.
If poverty is going Lo be faced, it cannot be faced by a system that gives no relief. Where a man is dependent for employment on the state of industry, and cannot get employment unless trade happens to be good and unless he happens to be under 40, if he is given a loan the harassing begins from the very day the loan is given, because there is no security of employment for a man who is over 40. I would like the Secretary of State for Scotland to make quite clear what is going to be the basis upon which recovery can take place. Is it to he really on the basis of income, or is it to include a valuation of the furniture of the household, or will consideration be given to the question whether the clothes they have are good or bad, whether they have an extra suit of clothes or extra underclothing? When the parish council's Inspector of the Poor goes to a house in Scotland, in order
to know exactly whether the occupant is going to get relief or not, he goes into every one of these details; in some places he will even open the drawers in the chest of drawers to see if there is anything in them. I have seen them at work, and I am the more ready to try to do every thing in my power to get some understanding on this matter now. I do not want to leave options to Poor Law inspectors; I want to have their powers clearly defined; and I would again draw the attention of the Secretary of State for Scotland to the point I have raised with regard to the boundary between parishes. He has lived in both town and country, and is bound to know the kind of things that take place; and, more than this, he is hound to know that, if you leave this option and have that differentiation between houses on one side of the road and houses on the opposite side, you are going to get the kind of trouble that will not only make this Measure a laughing-stock, but will make it more and more difficult to recover loans that might be recovered under a broader system.

Mr. N. MACLEAN: I want to ask the Secretary of State for Scotland for an explanation regarding the statement he let fall during his speech, to the effect that Clause 3 was not to be put in operation except where the circumstances were such as are described in Clause 2, that is to say, where relief was granted to the dependants of individuals who were out of work in consequence of a dispute. It was only in these circumstances that this particular option of giving a loan by the parish council was to be put in operation. I want to be clear about that, because Clause 3 speaks of "Any relief "—not relief granted to dependants of individuals who are out of work in consequence of a trade dispute, but "any relief." It may be that relief is given to the dependants, or, indeed, even to the individual himself who has been thrown out of employment by reason of depression of trade in, say, one of the shipyards on the Clyde. Whatever may be said in this House, we know it has not gone very far where the option has been left to people outside; they have put it in operation just in the way that they thought they were entitled to do. Conse-
quently, we are entitled to a little further explanation of that statement.
I want to carry a little further the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Springburn (Mr. Hardie). The Secretary of State himself knows perfectly well what transpires in various parish council areas. His own constituency contains the boundaries of three or four parish councils. He represents a portion of the parish of Cowcaddens, he represents a portion of the parish of Govan, he represents a portion of one of the Renfrew parishes, and I am not sure that he does not represent a portion of the parish of Eastwood as well. In the Division which he himself represents in this House, different sets of circumstances may arise as described by my hon. Friend the Member for Springburn. The parish council of Cowcaddens may be putting this particular option into operation, and demanding that the individual should recognise this particular advance from the parish Council as a loan, repayable when he obtains employment again. On the other side of the street one residing in the parish boundary of Govan might be freed from all such demands on the part of the Govan parish council. In his own constituency the right hon. Gentleman is going to have the circumstances arise. These are going to be multiplied by all the parish councils throughout Scotland and it is nothing for him to come along and say boundary lines mean nothing to him. You might as well have no boundary between Scotland and England, and in that case there need be no Secretary for Scotland and no Lord Advocate We might as well all be under the Home Secretary and the Attorney-General for England. If that is the idea of the Secretary for Scotland, that we are going to abolish the boundary between Scotland and England, he had better not cross the boundary between the two countries he will not get a very healthy reception. Will he explain exactly what is in his mind with regard to that point, and if he says it is only meant to operate where a dispute has been in existence, and where the dependants have to go to the parish to get relief, will he look at the Clause again and instead of saying, as Clause 3 says. "Any relief," get it to read, if he insists on it remaining in the
Bill, "Any such relief," and then you find the relation at once to what is contained in Clause 2, where is definitely set out the relief that is to be given to people who receive relief in trade disputes.

Sir HENRY SLESSER: I wish to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to a difference in principle, as I understand it, in the English law relating to relief on loan and the proposed provisions of this Bill. According to the English law, the relief on loan is to be such as the Poor Law Commissioners, who are now, of course, the Ministry of Health, may direct to be considered as loan. I wish to call his attention to Section 58 of the Poor Law Act, 1834, which provides that "relief may be given which the said Commissioners shall by any rule, order or regulation, declare or direct to be given or consider as given by way of loan," and the side note to the Act is "such relief as Commissioners may direct to be considered as loan." If it is not so specifically directed by rule or regulation it is given otherwise than by loan. When I come to look at this proposal in the Scottish Bill I find no such control by any central authority at all. In the Scottish Bill any relief may be given by loan when the local authority have complied with the conditions, that is given the receipt provided for in Paragraph (a) or the notification in writing provided in Paragraph (b). It is then to be deemed to be a loan, and the difference—and a very important difference it seems to me—between the existing law in England and the proposed law in Scotland is that in England the central authority can define by rule or regulation what type of relief is to be treated as loan, or presumably what condition of person shall be treated as the receiver of loan, and in Scotland there is no such control over the local authority at all.
If that be so, the observation of the Leader of the Opposition that we were not getting in this Bill uniformity of practice seems to me to be very pertinent. In England you get uniformity of practice by vesting the power of deciding whether the general principle of Poor Law relief shall be by loan in the central authority, and in Scotland there is no such provision, and therefore whether the Bill is wise or unwise, it is not quite correct
to say this proposal assimilates the English principle into the Scottish law. There is all the difference in the world in my opinion between vesting a central authority with a definitive power, by rule or regulation, which shall apply uniformly throughout the country that certain types of loan or certain types of recipients shall be regarded as persons presumed to receive loan, and the relief shall be considered as loan and giving to each local Poor Law authority the option by the serving of notices of this type, so that in one parish that very thing may be loan which under the like conditions to people in like circumstances on the other side of the road shall not be a loan. Among other things it may involve the migration of persons on one side of the street to the other, and so complicate the housing problem. However that may be, the House should be clear that this Bill as I understand it is not the same in structure as the English Poor Law, and if the Government desires to assimilate the English Poor Law to Scotland, it should withdraw the Bill and substitute in its place Section 58 of the Poor Law Act, 1834, with consequential amendments. I should like to ask this question. We know that the Scottish people, very wisely no doubt, in many matters have laws different from those that obtain in England, but why do you wish to use a different form of words in the Scottish law from that which already obtains in the English law, instead of taking the English law, which is appropriate for this purpose of loan, and assimiliating it to the Scottish system?

Mr. WESTWOOD: Many and varied as have been the arguments in the speeches and appeals made from this side to the Government to withdraw the Clause, to me there has been no appeal so eloquent as the absolute silence of the Conservative supporters of the Bill. We have not heard a single argument in favour of the Clause except from the Front Bench. We heard several speeches on the Second Reading, and we bad several speeches on the Financial Resolution, but we have not had a single speech from the back benches of the Conservative party backing up this proposal. To my mind that is the most eloquent appeal that has been made to the Government to drop this proposal, because it is obvious that there is no member of the
Tory party, other than members of the Government itself, who are prepared to justify the Clause. It has been pointed out that there will be lack of uniformity, particularly between parish and parish, but lack of uniformity will go even further than that. There will be lack of uniformity inside the parish itself. My first experience in connection with parish council administration convinced me that the one who was most thrifty, and the one who tried to do his duty was the one who was always penalised in connection with parish relief. What will happen in connection with this power being given to choose between granting money on loan and granting money as relief will be that when the parish clerk or the Poor Law inspector carries his investigations into the home, where there is cleanliness, where there is evidence of past thrift, where there is any evidence that there will be effort in the future, the parish council will only grant the money on loan, and on the other hand if it happens not to be a home that appeals to the inspector, the money will be granted as relief because of the destitution of the recipient. That ought not to be allowed. Whilst there is a logical complaint against lack of uniformity between different parishes, to my mind the worst feature will be the lack of uniformity inside the parish itself. There is the double fact that the individual who may make a special effort to repay the loan will be called upon in addition to pay rates in connection with the amount that has been granted because of the alleged destitution of a second individual who is not called upon to repay.

There is one point I should like to put. How long may a debt hang over an individual who has a loan? People have been summoned in England for debts that were contracted in 1921. I want to know how long a debt will he held as being a legal debt, because it would seem to me if you keep it going long enough you will be making the children responsible for money loaned to the parent for the purpose of helping to maintain them. Therefore you will be creating a double hardship so far as the children are concerned. There is not a single back-bencher of the Tory party prepared to back this Clause. Neither the hon. Member for N. Lanark (Sir A. Sprot) nor the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Kidd) nor other Members of the rank and file will dare to get up and support it. It is an open challenge. I should very much like to hear them because, representing the Labour and Socialist party as I do, I am very anxious to get shot and shell for the next election. It is quite obvious that they are not prepared to accept the challenge and justify a Clause which is obnoxious to the administrators in Scotland, and obnoxious to the business men of Scotland, will certainly be obnoxious to those who are compelled to get money on loan, and I feel sure is obnoxious to all Members of the House other than those who are directly Members of the Government.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'an,' in line 32, stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 185; Noes, 92.

Division No. 26.]
AYES.
[5.0 p.m.


Albery, Irving James
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Briggs, J. Harold
Cockerill, Brig. General Sir G. K.


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Centr'l)
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool,W. Derby)
Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Cooper, A. Duff


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Buckingham, Sir H.
Couper, J. B.


Ashley, Lt-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W
Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan
Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent,Dover)
Burman, J. B.
Crawfurd, H. E.


Atholl, Duchess of
Burton, Colonel H. W.
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Carver, Major W. H.
Crookshank,Cpt.H.(Lindsey,Gainsbro)


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Cayzer,Maj.Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)


Bennett, A. J.
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Dawson, Sir Philip


Berry, Sir George
Chamberlain,Rt.Hn.SirJ.A. (Birm.,W.)
Dixey, A. C.


Bethel, A.
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. H.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Chilcott, Sir Warden
Edmondson, Major A. J.


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Christie, J. A.
Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)


Blundell, F. N.
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Elliot, Major Walter E.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Clarry, Reginald George
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Fanshawe, Commander G. D.


Fermoy, Lord
Looker, Herbert William
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Ford, Sir P. J.
Lumley, L, R.
Sandon, Lord


Fraser, Captain Ian
Lynn, Sir Robert J.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Gates, Percy
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Savery, S. S.


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie


Glyn, Major R. G. C.
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)


Gower, Sir Robert
MacIntyre, I.
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Grace, John
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Skelton, A. N.


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dlne, C.)


Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Malone, Major P. B.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Hammersley, S. S.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Hanbury, C.
Margesson, Capt. D.
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Harland, A.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Stanley,Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)


Harney, E. A.
Meyer, Sir Frank
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Hartington, Marquess of
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
Streatfelld, Captain S. R.


Hawke, John Anthony
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Styles, Captain H. Walter


Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(St. Marylebone)
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Holland, Sir Arthur
Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph
Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)


Hopkins, J. W. W.
Nelson, Sir Frank
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)


Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn.W.G.(Ptrsf'ld.)
Tinne, J. A.


Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Colonel C. K.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Hudson, R, S. (Cumberland, Whiteh'n)
Penny, Frederick George
Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Huntingfield, Lord
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Hurd, Percy A.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple-


Hurst, Gerald B.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Wiggins, William Martin


Hutchison,G.A.Clark(Midl'n & P'bl's)
Plicher, G.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Radford, E. A.
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Jacob, A. E.
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Wilson, M. J. (York, N. R., Richm'd)


James, Lieut-Colonel Hon, Cuthbert
Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Jephcott, A. R.
Remer, J. R.
Wise, Sir Fredric


Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Remnant, Sir James
Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Kindersley, Major Guy M.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


King, Captain Henry Douglas
Rice, Sir Frederick
Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)


Knox, Sir Alfred
Roberts, E. H. G (Flint)



Lamb, J. Q.
Ropner, Major L.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Ruggies-Brise, Major E. A.
Captain Lord Stanley and Captain


Loder, J. de v.
Sandeman, A. Stewart
Bowyer.


NOES.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hardie, George D.
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. H., Ellano)


Alexander, A. V (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hirst, G. H.
Rose, Frank H.


Ammon, Charles George
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Baker, Walter
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Scrymgeour, E.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Barnes, A.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Barr, J.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Briant, Frank
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Snell, Harry


Broad, F. A.
Kelly, W. T.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Bromfield, William
Kennedy, T.
Stamford, T. W.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Lansbury, George
Stephen, Campbell


Buchanan, G.
Lawrence, Susan
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Lawson, John James
Sullivan, J.


Charleton, H. C.
Leo, F.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Cluse, W. S.
Lindley, F. W.
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro,W)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Lowth, T.
Thurtle, Ernest


Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)
Lunn, William
Varley, Frank B.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)
Viant, S. P.


Day, Colonel Harry
Mackinder, W.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Dunnico, H.
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
March, S.
Westwood, J.


Gardner, J. P.
Montague, Frederick
Whiteley, W.


Greenall, T.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Naylor, T. E.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Windsor, Walter


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Ponsonby, Arthur
Wright, W.


Groves, T.
Potts, John S.



Grundy, T. W.
Purcell, A. A.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Riley, Ben
Mr. Hayes and Mr. T. Henderson.


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W.Bromwich)

Amendment made: In page 2, line 32, leave out the words "an alimentary,"
and insert instead thereof the word "a." [Sir J. Gilmour.]

CLAUSE 4.—(11 and 12 Geo. V. c. 64 to be further continued.)

Amendment made: In page 2, line 34, after "1921," insert the words, "and this Act."—[Sir J. Gilmour.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."—[Sir J. Gilmour.]

Sir JOHN MARRIOTT: Those of us who sit on these benches have been taunted from the other side of the House with lack of active participation in this Debate. I am anxious to do anything I can to oblige hon. Members on the other side of the House, and, before we finally part with this Bill, I would like to say one word, not quite from the point of view of those which have been addressed from the other side, but one word of very respectful protest on behalf of that oppressed and long-suffering and, on the whole, unsuspecting class of British, or rather of English taxpayers. I am very well aware of the convention by which business that specially relates to Scotland in this House is, on the whole, delegated to the exclusive attention of Scottish Members. That is a form of Home Rule, or of devolution, for which, I think, there is a good deal to be said, although nothing has ever been said in favour of the rule being made reciprocal. I admit that I was deluded by the Title of this Bill into the belief that the Bill was really a Scottish Bill, and I frankly confess that -on that account I was, in accordance with the usual convention, somewhat intermittent in my attendance in the Chamber in the middle part of last week. But in the Debate on the Financial Resolution it became, I think, apparent, from the intervention, or perhaps I should say from the attempted intervention, of one or two Members representing English constituencies, that, despite the delusive appearance and Title of this Bill, it was by no means exclusively one which affected Scotland. At any rate,, it is one which, as I submit, directly and rather seriously affects the English taxpayer as well.
The particular point to which I want to direct the attention of the House, before this Bill is read the Third time, is that the Bill does contain one or two very objectionable features. In the first place, it represents an instance, and I
think rather a bad instance, of ex post facto legislation. I was brought up in the straitest set of constitutionalists. I was brought up in the belief, which I am sure is shared by the straiter sect opposite, that ex post facto legislation is rather abhorrent to all properly-constituted and legally-minded people. I admit that, in my case, that prejudice has never been dissipated. This Bill seems to me peculiarly objectionable on this ground, that here we have an attempt at ex post facto legislation to legalise an executive illegality. The Bill arises from the fact that the Scottish Board of Health, in their Circular dated 8th May, 1926, recommended a particular course to the parish councils of Scotland which was shown to he palpably an illegal proceeding. Here we are in this House asked to give our ex post facto sanction or condemnation to that illegality. The parish councils in Scotland declined to be guilty, as I understand it, of this illegality, or rather were restrained from the illegality by the wisdom of the Scottish Courts. If similar instructions had been issued by an ignorant and benighted English Minister in Whitehall, I wonder what would have been said of it by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite? But that such an instruction should have been issued from the Scottish Board of Health fills me, I confess, with astonishment and dismay. I must say that my first impulse—a very strong impulse—was to ask the House to defer the Third Reading of this Bill for the usual period of six months. [HON.MEMBERS: "Why not?"] I did not want to adopt that extreme course, partly because I do not think it would be a success, and, having made my brief and, I hope,, entirely respectful protest, I will say no more.

Mr. BARR: We have witnessed a remarkable scene. After incessant calls for some representative from Scotland from the back benches opposite to defend this Bill, and the challenge thrown out by my hon. Friend the Member for Peebles (Mr. Westwood), as if to give confirmation of the impossibility of Scottish hon. Members opposite to respond to that challenge, it was taken up by the hon. Member for York (Sir J. Marriott). In taking up the challenge he expressly said that he did so in order that there might be
someone from the back benches opposite who would take it up. So far from defending the Bill and the Government he rated the Law Officers of the Crown and the Scottish Board of Health and almost went to the length of calling for the rejection of the Bill on Third Reading. He took strong exception to the financial provision of 40 per cent. towards the cost of these outlays and pointed out that was hard upon the English taxpayers. As a matter of fact, since 1834, and I think previous to that, under English law the Scottish taxpayer has been indirectly paying for the support of the able-bodied poor there, and they have been denied any such provision for themselves. Therefore, this Bill in this small way is only a very tardy giving back on the part of the English taxpayer what has been paid for centuries by Scotland towards England in this regard.
I feel that I must, come to the defence of the Lord Advocate and the Law Officers of the Scottish Board of Health. It is true that they took their duties as Law Officers somewhat lightly, and when they were called upon to give their decision on this question of relief they said, "Whether it is legal or not, we think it would be right to do it." That was the extent of their contribution, as the Lord Advocate himself admitted, when this question came forward. I am not against the attitude which they took up altogether in that, regard. We are told that the priests profane the law and are blameless. The Law Officers can equally defy and set at naught the law, and if they are not quite blameless they have made a very bold precedent which, I think, will be helpful in future days and for future Governments, in that we may not be bound too closely to the law of the country, and may do what is best in the national interest. Having adopted this course, the Law Officers carried it through in a courageous and consistent way, and when certain parish councils were refusing to give support to the dependants of strikers they said that they viewed their action with grave concern; that it seemed to them to be incompatible with their primary duty to relieve destitution. They told the councils that if they declined to grant relief, as some of them were doing, they would be
refusing to perform one of the main duties laid on them by Statute, namely, the duty
of ensuring that relief is afforded out of the poor rates to prevent injury to health through the effects of destitution.
They not only asked these councils to reconsider their position, but, in the end—and I say this to their credit—they accepted responsibility for the expense, although not so largely as we might have wished. They did not accept responsibility to the full extent of the expenditure, but they accepted responsibility, and we are grateful that they went so far as 40 per cent., although we would have wished that they had gone much further.
I desire to emphasise what has been said this afternoon as to the different ways in which this will help in different parishes. I referred the other day to a parish in my own constituency which twice refused to give relief. At the end of July the parish of Cambusnethan resolved to discontinue all relief to the dependants of persons concerned in the dispute, and when they were asked by the Scottish Board of Health, in strong terms, to reconsider their position, they reaffirmed their attitude by nine votes to seven. I mentioned this fact the other day and I refer to it to-day in order to say that I omitted to state that up to that point they had contributed to the relief of miners' dependants. I find that from the 18th May to the 14th August, when that relief was discontinued by them, they had contributed a sum of not less than £9,888 13s. 6d. In not mentioning this large sum, and in speaking as if they had done nothing up to that time I unintentionally did them an injustice, for which I desire to express my regret. In all, including their contributions to the soup kitchen, they contributed £11,145 1s. 10d.
Now I come to one other aspect of this Bill, namely, the relief on loan. The other day, I made some reference to the Royal Commission on the Poor Law in 1909. The reply of the Secretary of State for Scotland on that occasion, or of the Lord Advocate, was that there had been a great deal of change since 1909, and that the industrial conditions were entirely different. I think it was the Secretary of State for Scotland who said that. Human nature has not changed since 1909, and the evidence that we have in large volume in the Scottish Poor Law Commission and the English Poor Law
Commission of that year is still applicable and relevant, and it is most enlightening. I have pursued my studies of it, and I wish to emphasise one or two points which I think are made quite clear in the evidence and decisions of the Commissions. First of all, a large number of witnesses who had been serving on boards of guardians, and a large number of medical men, said that relief by loan is a deterrent to the deserving poor and that it prevents them coming forward. I might quote from Mr. J. T. Dodd, of the Oxford Board of Guardians who, referring specially to medical relief on loan, said:
It is no matter of surprise if a hard-worked father, with low wages and a large family, permits his child, with sore throat, measles, or chicken-pox (which is sometimes really smallpox) to wait a few days rather than be himself plunged into debt and ordered before the board.
He pleaded against it in the interests of the public health and of the national future. Other witnesses gave evidence as to the methods used with regard to the deserving poor, who were said to be harassed by the relieving officer, lawyer's letters from the clerk, and occasional legal proceedings in Court. Many witnesses gave evidence that very little money is recovered by these means. I think the Secretary of State spoke to-day of this method as a safeguard for the ratepayers. We find whole pages of evidence from Swansea, Merthyr, Middlesbrough and other towns in England saying that very little, if anything, is ever recovered in this way. It was pointed out this afternoon that the parish councils, like the guardians, would deal with individual cases, but, as a matter of fact, some boards of guardians —Swansea, for instance—resolved that they would give no relief at all save giving it on loan. I think it is also clear that this method does lend itself to laxity of administration, because at one end it deters the deserving poor while at the other end it tends to demoralise. Relief is easily given because it is being given on loan, and it is just as readily accepted by those who have no intention to repay. One of the witnesses was Dr. Robert Burnett, who said:
The thing is a farce.
Mr. J. T. Dodd, of the Oxford Board of Guardians, speaking of medical relief on
loan, sums up the whole position. He said:
I should abolish it for two or three reasons. In the first place, it is a very serious deterrent. In the next place, the guardians get very little repaid, so it is of very little good. And in the third place, it impoverishes the family just at the time when they want more money, when there is illness in the home—which costs a great deal of money, as we know. That is just the time when you should not burden the family. Then it is demoralising in most cases, because the man does not pay it back, and in many cases he cannot, and there is the debt hanging on his back. Altogether, making relief a loan is usually a very bad thing 
This vast mass of evidence—I grant that the evidence is not entirely on one side—cumulatively, is largely against relief on loan, as far as evidence was given before the Commission. It is true that last Wednesday representatives of the parish councils who met, I think, in the West of Scotland, gave a kind of general approval to this principle of loan, but that is a very different thing from this matter being brought before us in a more timely way and the whole of the Parishes considering it in all its bearings. The fact is, that the Government have brought speedily forward and have rushed through this ill-digested proposal. It pleases no one. Their credit is being cried down in the leading Unionist newspapers in Scotland, and it looks as if they would have to go out of business altogether. These objections come from the most opposite quarters, and it may he said that they cancel one another; but I take it that there are some things on which those who are at opposite extremes can really be united, and I think we are united against crude legislation of this kind being introduced in this way. Up to a week ago no one scarcely knew that such a proposal world be made. We knew that the other proposals In the Bill were coming forward in some form.
This proposal has been rushed through in the course of a week, against the declared public opinion of Scotland, Those who were opposing it, arc against needless harshness being exercised on the deserving poor. We are against any system which amounts, as I have sought to show by evidence, to a great deal of make-believe and farce. We desire to see sound business methods in the administration of Poor Law relief. We are united also in desiring that the
Scottish Poor Law should not only continue to be what it has been, but that it should cast its aid on the side of thrift and independence, and that it may be a real uplift of the poor people of the country, not only a strengthening of their physical frame, but also a strengthening of their moral fibre.

Mr. STEPHEN: I desire to make a few remarks in regard to this Measure before it passes the House. I am sorry the Secretary of State for Scotland has not taken the advice offered him from this side in connection with the loan Clause. The, hon. Member who preceded me has given some details of the history which has led up to this legislation. Evidently there was some doubt in Scotland as to the exact legal position in regard to Poor Law relief. Some time ago I put a question to the Secretary of State asking him if he would re-issue the hand-book of Regulations in connection with Poor Law relief. He said that it was out of print, and would cost too much, but I think it is important that parish councils should know what their powers are and that the people who are in need of relief should be able to discover the rights they possess. I would suggest to the Secretary of State that, if it is not possible to re-issue the handbook of Regulations, he should issue a handbook, or something in the way of a Circular, stating exactly the powers that are now in the hands of the parish councils, and giving poor people information as to their exact position in regard to relief. There is some difficulty in the minds of some people as to what the position is. What is the position of a poor person requiring medical assistance? What is the position of the person who goes to the parish council for relief and is told that they cannot give him anything, or that he should go into the poor-house? There is an appeal in each of these cases, and there is also a ruling of the Scottish Board of Health to the effect that a person should get a written statement as to what the parish council has decided in his case.
In many cases the person asking for relief gets no such written statement, and I take the opportunity on this Bill of asking the Secretary of State to do something in order that poor people may know what their rights are in connection with Poor Law relief. That is one of the
things I was very anxious to say. I repeat that I am sorry that the Secretary of State has allowed this fatal blemish to remain in the Bill. He is to be congratulated that as a Member of the Cabinet and the present Government he is to be responsible for putting an Act on the Statute Book, a privilege which evidently most of his colleagues will not enjoy. He is to be congratulated on the fact that he is going to be one of the few Ministers to be allowed to pass an Act of Parliament during this Session, but it is a great pity that this money lending sort of Clause is in the Bill, because his administration is going to be known in Scotland as the "Three balls administration," that being the symbol in Scotland for pawnbroking or lending. With a little more willingness to accept the opinion of his opponents and some of his supporters, he might have passed a much more satisfactory Measure on to the Statute Book.

Mr. WRIGHT: I have only a few words to add to the Debate. I consider this is panic legislation; and we are bound to ask ourselves what motive there is behind it; what is the driving force behind the conduct of the Lord Advocate and the Secretary of State? An hon. Member, who spoke the other day, gave us the reason—it is their concern about the very unjust settlement imposed by hunger on the miners during the recent dispute.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope): That is hardly a matter for the Third Reading of this Bill.

Mr. WRIGHT: I was trying to explain the motive behind the Bill, and I thought it would have been in order. However, if it is not, I will say this as a final protest against what has taken place. I regard this as another act of injustice to Scotland, and a very grave act of injustice. It is being imposed on Scotland by English Conservative Members, who have not taken part in the discussion or even listened to the Debate. That is an additional reason why Scotland should be allowed to manage her own affairs.

Sir J. GILMOUR: May I be permitted to say a few words on the conclusion of this Debate? I am aware that from many quarters, and from a variety of different sources in Scotland, certain protests have come as to the method of dealing with this problem. I only want
to say on this point the situation which arose, arose through circumstances which were common to the entire United Kingdom; and when the hon. Member for York (Sir J. Marriott) complains about our method of dealing with it, I am justified in reminding him that the legality was also found to be ex post facto. In any case, it was clear that the Government was faced with the problem of either administering the law of relief in the same method or differentiating. Reference has been made to the responsibility of the Board of Health. The responsibility was mine as the Minister advising and in control of the Board of Health, and I take the fullest responsibility. Not only that, but the decision to carry out what I advised was a decision agreed to by the entire Cabinet. There is no doubt about that. Therefore, when this was declared by the Court to be illegal, at any rate in part, the Government have recognised their responsibility and have contributed 40 per cent. I am satisfied that a certain measure of the opposition to what I am doing is coming from a section of the community who would prefer to see no relief given, as is provided under Clause 1 of the Bill. Hon. Members of the opposite side of the House have spoken as if that Clause did not exist.
On the other hand, I am constrained to say to those in Scotland who say that they would prefer to see the old law of Scotland retained, that as I had to administer this problem at the time it was impossible for me to adopt a policy which would give relief to women and children across the border and deny it to

those in Scotland. What position was in if disturbances had arisen from the denial and withholding of this relief? Was I to say that the disturbers were to be suppressed, and that under similar circumstances these people were not to be treated similarly if you say that you are going to abolish that principle in England, well and good; but it was in these circumstances that the decision was taken and in these circumstances that we introduce this Bill to-day, in order —

Mr. WRIGHT: To anticipate coming events.

Sir J. GILMOUR: It is in order to carry us over a period until there can be a full recasting of the whole of this problem—it would not be proper for me to go into that now—and to achieve equality in treatment between the North and the South of the Tweed.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: During the discussion of this Measure special attention has been drawn to tae question of local option. A very vivid description has been given as to what might take place under this Bill on one side of the street as against what might take place on the other. There was a call for uniformity of action, and I am making a special note of that deliverance from the Front Opposition Bench, and I expect that hen. Members opposite will be much impressed with it as well.

Question put, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

The House divided: Ayes, 233; Noes, 104.

Division No. 27.]
AYES.
[5.45 p.m.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Campbell, E. T.


Ainsworth, Major Charles
Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Carver, Major W. H.


Albery, Irving James
Blundell, F. N.
Cautley, Sir Henry S.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt.R.(Prtsmth,S.)


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm.,W.)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Briggs, J. Harold
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Briscoe, Richard George
Christie, J. A.


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Brittain, Sir Harry
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent,Dover)
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Clarry, Reginald George


Atholl, Duchess of
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Cobb, Sir Cyril


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Buckingham, Sir H.
Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir G. K.


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan
Cooper, A. Duff


Bennett, A. J.
Burman, J. B.
Cope, Major William


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-
Burton, Colonel H. W.
Couper, J. B.


Berry, Sir George
Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Courtauld, Major J.[...]


Bethel, A.
Butt, Sir Alfred
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.


Betterton, Henry B.
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim)


Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Remnant, Sir James


Crawfurd, H. E.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Rice, Sir Frederick


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Jacob, A. E.
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)


Crookshank,Cpt.H.(Lindsey,Gainsbro)
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Ropner, Major L.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Jephcott, A. R.
Ruggies-Brise, Major E. A.


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset,Yeovll)
Kindersley, Major Guv M.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Knox, Sir Alfred
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Dawson, Sir Philip
Lamb, J. O.
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Sandon, Lord


Eden, Captain Anthony
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Loder, J. de V.
Savery, S. S.


Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Skelton, A. N.


England, Colonel A.
Lumley, L. R.
Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dlne, C.)


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Westons.-M.)
Lynn, Sir R. J.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Smithers, Waldron


Fermoy, Lord
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Fielden, E. B.
Maclntyre, I.
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Ford, Sir P. J.
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)


Fraser, Captain Ian
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Gates, Percy
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Malone, Major P. B.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Styles, Captain H. Walter


Gower, Sir Robert
Margesson, Captain D.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Grace, John
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Grant, Sir J. A.
Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Merriman, F. B.
Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Meyer, Sir Frank
Thomson, F, C. (Aberdeen, South)


Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Sir H.(W'th's'w.E)
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Grotrian, H. Brent
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Ward, Lt.-Col.A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Moreing, Captain A. H.
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Hammersley, S. S.
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Murchison, Sir C. K.
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple-


Harland, A.
Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Harney, E. A.
Nelson, Sir Frank
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Hartington, Marquess of
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Hawke, John Anthony
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn.W.G. (Ptrsf'ld.)
Wilson, M. J. (York, N. R., Richm'd)


Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd,Henley)
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Penny, Frederick George
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Wise, Sir Fredric


Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Withers, John James


Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Wolmer, Viscount


Holland, Sir Arthur
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Womersley, W. J.


Hopkins, J. W. W.
Philipson, Mabel
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).


Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)
Pilcher, G.
Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney,N.)
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis
Radford, E. A.
Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)


Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Raine, W



Huntingfield, Lord
Rawson, Sir Cooper
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hurd, Percy A.
Reid, D. D. (County Sown)
Major Sir George Hennessy and


Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's)
Remer, J. R.
Captain Lord Stanley.


NOES.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Dennison, R.
Kelly, W. T.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Dunnico, H.
Kennedy, T.


Ammon, Charles George
Edwards C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bllston)
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Lawrence, Susan


Baker, Walter
Gardner, J. P.
Lawson, John James


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Lee, F.


Barnes, A.
Greenall, T,
Lindley, F. W.


Barr, J.
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Lowth, T.


Batey, Joseph
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Lunn, William


Bondfield, Margaret
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)


Briant, Frank
Groves, T.
Mackinder, W.


Broad, F. A.
Grundy, T. W.
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)


Bromfield, William
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
MacNeill-Weir, L.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll)
March, S.


Buchanan, G.
Hardie, George D.
Montague, Frederick


Charleton, H. C.
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Morrison, R C. (Tottenham, N.)


Cluse, W. S.
Hirst, G. H.
Naylor, T. E.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Connolly, M.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Ponsonby, Arthur


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Potts, John S.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Purcell, A. A.


Day, Colonel Harry
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)




Riley, Ben
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Ritson, J.
Stamford, T. W.
Wellock, Wilfred


Robinson, W. C.(Yorks, W. R., Elland)
Stephen, Campbell
Westwood, J.


Rose, Frank H.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Whiteley, W.


Salter, Dr. Alfred
Sullivan, J.
Wiggins, William Martin


Scrymgeour, E.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Soxton, James
Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.)
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Thurtle, Ernest
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Sitch, Charles H.
Trevelyan, Rt, Hon. C. P.
Wright, W.


Slesser, Sir Henry H.
Varley, Frank B.



Smith, Ben (Bermondsey,Rotherhithe)
Viant, S. P.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Smith, H. B. Lees (Kelghley)
Wallhead, Richard C.
Mr. Hayes and Mr. T. Henderson.


Snell, Harry
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)



Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.

Order for Third Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: The Third Reading of this Bill must not be allowed to pass without one note of warning being expressed from this side of the House. With the main object of the Bill, of course, we are in full sympathy. Useful spending by the municipalities on constructive work is an operation with which we fully agree, and we have no wish in any way to thwart it. But it must be remembered that this Bill operates to increase the public debt by a sum of £40,000,000, and that that involves more seriously our national credit. The proposals of the Bill, coming on top of the recent Conversion Loan, which was issued at a very considerable discount, involve a very large increase of the capital debt of the country. Some of us were very glad to hear on an earlier stage of the Bill a statement by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury that the present view of the Treasury is that that method of issuing loans at a, heavy discount ought not to be repeated. I believe he said that, though he did not bind himself in individual cases, the general policy of the Treasury now is that loans ought to be issued not very far below par. That is a very welcome pronouncement, following as it does the very vigorous statement by both the majority and minority reports of the Colwyn Committee. The warning I wanted to put forward with regard to this Bill is in relation to the Sinking Fund. In view of this large increase in the public debt it is of supreme importance that there should be no tampering
with the Sinking Fund. Both the majority and minority reports of the Colwyn Committee are emphatic in declaring that at an early date the amount of the Sinking Fund should be increased.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: We cannot have a general Debate on the finance of the country on this Bill. The hon. Member would be perfectly in order in directing the attention of the House to the effects of the Bill on national credit, or to the question of how loans are to be raised, but to go into the question of the Sinking Fund would be to open up a Debate which would be more appropriate to the Finance Bill.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I quite appreciate that ruling, and I had no intention of going at any length into the question of the Sinking Fund; but I think you will agree that it is legitimate to draw the attention of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to the point that the increase in the debt involved in this and similar operations makes it absolutely essential that the Sinking Fund policy which has been indicated shall be adhered to in the current year.

LAND TAX COMMISSIONERS BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Ronald McNeill): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This Bill is a Bill that used to be fairly frequently brought before the House in former times—as a rule every four or five years, which in practice was once in each Parliament. But as it has not been reintroduced since the year 1906, and there are comparatively few hon. Mem-
bers who were in the House at that time, perhaps the House would like me to give a short explanation of the Bill and the procedure that is applied to it. As a rule in former times, when the House was fairly familiar with the Bill, it was regarded as entirely uncontroversial, as it is, and indeed practically a formality. I believe that when it was last introduced in 1906 there was hardly a word said upon it in either House. The object of the Bill is to appoint Land Tax Commissioners. These Commissioners are a very old portion of our administrative machinery, and they are appointed by this House. The Bill is commonly known as the "Names Bill" because its purpose is to secure names of those who are to serve in the office of Land Tax Commissioners. The duties of these Commissioners, so far as the Land Tax is concerned—that, as hon. Members know, is a very ancient form of taxation—are not of very great importance, although they would require to be replaced by some other machinery if they disappeared. But they also have another function, and that is that Land Tax Commissioners are charged with a duty of appointing the local Commissioners of Income Tax.
6.0 p.m.
The practice has been from time to time to appoint a number of these Commissioners from every part of the country, and, just as it happened to be convenient and as there was a depletion of their ranks, to pass this Bill again in order that the body of Commissioners might be replenished. They were so fully replenished in 1906 that there has been no necessity for a Bill from that time until now. It is not surprising, after that lapse of time, that information should have been received by the Treasury from various parts of the country that there is a lack of Land Tax Commissioners, and consequently it is my duty to bring the Bill before the House. I should like to say something regarding the procedure which is followed in connection with this Bill, because it is rather curiosity. If the House gives a Second Reading to the Bill, a considerable interval will elapse before the Committee stage is taken. Hon. Members may have observed on the Paper certain Resolutions which stand in my name to be passed, I hope, after the Second Reading of this Bill. When the Bill has been
read a Second time, and these Resolutions have been adopted, intimation will be sent to the Land Tax Commissioners throughout the country, who will thereupon prepare lists in their respective localities of persons whom they consider suitable to serve in this position. These lists will be sent to hon. Members, who will then have to exercise their discretion upon those lists. Their discretion is quite unlimited. They will be able to strike out names which have been submitted and to add any names which they think fit, or, if they like to do so, they can practically tear up the lists sent from their own localities and make out fresh lists of their own. Having done so, it will then be the duty of hon. Members to deliver their lists to the Public Bill Office in this House, and when time has been allowed for that process to complete itself, the Committee stage of the Bill will be taken, and the names selected or proposed by hon. Members will appear as the Schedule to the Bill, and will be published in the "Gazette." By that process, which rather savours of old-time methods, we shall succeed in replenishing the lists of Land Tax Commissioners available for the duties I have already described. I wish to repeat that, in former times, this was quite a familiar procedure in the House, and I think this Bill was always regarded as a mere formality. I have not thought it right to treat it merely as a, formality to-day, because, through disuse, the House is no longer familiar with it, but I hope the short explanation I have given will be satisfactory, and that hon. Members will allow us to have the Second Reading.

Mr. WILLIAM GRAHAM: The House is indebted to the Financial Secretary for his explanation of this Bill, which I confess is one little known to any Members of this Chamber, save those who were here in 1906 and preceding years. I agree that in existing conditions it would be impossible to regard this Bill as controversial in character, but even if it were controversial, as the right hon. Gentleman has pointed out, we have ample time in which to marshal any objections we may have to the Measure, owing to the long procedure which must be followed before the Committee stage can be taken on the Floor of the House. Accordingly, so far as we on this side are concerned, all that need be said at
the moment is this, that the structure of the administration of the Income Tax, the Land Tax, and the rest was considered very carefully and in great detail by the Royal Commission on Income Tax in 1919. Our Report was presented in the succeeding year, and I believe it is true to say of that Report, that, apart from certain reforms which we recommended, which have since been applied, and apart from the concession of the portion of the Report relating to exemptions and allowances and so forth, no alteration of any importance has been made in the administrative structure. The speech of the Financial Secretary, as I think he will be the first to agree, makes it plain that there are old-world elements it this structure which are very interesting, but are hardly appropriate in existing conditions, and the time must come very soon when this House will require as a matter of efficiency—when the Income Tax with Super-tax is producing £360,000,000 a year—to look at the administrative side. Clearly, we could not do that in a small formal Bill of this kind. My view, for what it is worth, is that we are obliged to go on with this Measure under existing conditions, but that the House should be reminded of the very great importance of undertaking at the earliest possible moment those administrative reforms in the general structure of the tax, which were recommended by the Royal Commission in 1920.

Sir HENRY CAUTLEY: This Bill is described as a Bill to appoint additional commissioners for executing the Acts granting a Land Tax and other rates and taxes, and we find in Clause l that the Commissioners are for putting into execution the Acts for granting an aid to His Majesty by a Land Tax. The Minister has explained that part very fully and clearly, but the Clause then goes on to say:
and the Acts for continuing or granting to His Majesty rates and taxes"—
I should like to ask the Financial Secretary what is the exact meaning of this reference to continuing or granting to His Majesty rates and taxes.

Mr. McNEILL: I think this is redundant language, taken from the old Act, and describes the levying of the Land Tax.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Mr. R. McNeill.]

Ordered,
That the Members for counties do prepare lists of the christian names and surnames of Commissioners for executing the Land Tax Acts for their respective counties.

Ordered,
That Members for boroughs and places having Commissioners exercising exclusive jurisdiction within the same under Die said Acts do prepare similar lists of Commissioners for executing the said Acts within such boroughs and places, respectively.

Ordered,
That Members for other boroughs and places do prepare similar lists of Commissioners for executing tie said Acts for the counties in which such last-mentioned boroughs and places are situate."—[Mr. R. McNeill.]

POLICE (APPEALS) BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Captain Hacking): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
The object of the Bill is quite clearly set forth in the Title. It is a Bill to
provide for a right of appeal by members of police forces who are dismissed or required to resign.
The question of the institution of an appeal tribunal in the police forces of this country has been discussed on many occasions and for many years past, but it has been especially brought to the notice of the police forces and of Members of this House by the Report of the Committee on Police Services in England, Wales and Scotland, of which Lord Des-borough was the Chairman. That Committee issued its Report in 1920. In page 9, paragraph 125, of that Report, the Commission recommend that any constable should have a right of appeal against a decision of a chief constable involving his dismissal. It is right to say at once that the suggestion of an appeal was not brought forward because of any harshness on the part of chief constables, or any unfairness or unreasonableness on their part towards those serv-
ing under them. In fact, the same section of the Report, to which I have already referred contains also this passage, which it would be well to read to the House as the opinion of the Commission.
We do not make this suggestion"—
That is the suggestion of an appeal—
because any abuses in the exercise of their powers on the part of county chief constables have been brought to our notice. On the contrary, there was a striking absence of complaint throughout the evidence, and testimony was borne by a number of witnesses from the lower ranks to the impartial and considerate way in which the county chief constables had exercised the powers vested in them. The suggestion that there should be a right of appeal was made to us by a number of county chief constables themselves.
This is a subject on which, naturally, the police feel very keenly. There has been no suggestion by the police and there has been no suggestion by the Home Office, that discipline is not reasonably and fairly administered but very exceptional cases may arise where there is a suspicion of bias, or doubt as to evidence, or where fresh evidence has come to light after a case has been dealt with. At present, such exceptional cases are not provided for, and the House will realise that it is not unreasonable to have an appeal when we consider the very serious consequences to the individual constable of dismissal. In ordinary walks of life, 1,11 individual who is at cross-purposes with his chief and who is dismissed, can frequently get another position in a similar occupation under another chief. That is not so in the police force. There is no chance of making a fresh start in another force. If a police constable is discharged in one part of the country, he has no opportunity of being taken back to the force in any other part of the country. His reappointment is barred by police regulations. Having thus established, as I believe we must establish, the principle of the right of appeal, the question which the House has to ask itself is: What form should such appeal take, and how does this Bill deal with the subject?
I frankly admit that the proposals of this Bill are not those which are contained in the recommendations of the Desborough Committee. The question as to the form which the Bill should take must, of necessity, be viewed from different standpoints by different autho-
rities, and must involve intricate problems of police administration. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department has considered all the different standpoints, he has carefully deliberated upon all the representations that have been made to him from all those who are directly or indirectly interested and concerned, and I may add that he will still give consideration and attention to any further representations that may be made to him before this Bill gets into Committee and during its passage through Committee. But, after having considered all the representations that have already been made to him, he has decided that the best course is to introduce the Bill on the lines laid down in the particular Measure which is now before the House. The reasons for this form are twofold. In the first place, the lines of this Bill are those best calculated to preserve discipline in the forces, and we must all admit that we must not sacrifice discipline under any consideration. The other reason which leads him to believe that these are the best lines on which to proceed is because, in his opinion, they are the most likely to meet with general support.
Briefly, the terms of the Bill are these: A member of a police force who is dismissed or required to resign may appeal to a Secretary of State, and, having received his appeal the Secretary of State may appoint one or more persons to hold an inquiry and report to him. After having considered that report, the Secretary of State shall, by Order, do one of three things. He shall either allow the appeal, or dismiss the appeal, or vary the punishment by substituting some other punishment for that which the disciplinary authority might have awarded; and, finally, an Order made by the Secretary of State shall be final and binding on all parties. The other Clauses of the Bill are of really minor importance. The principle is contained in the first two Clauses. Clause 3 gives the Secretary of State power to summon witnesses; Clause 4 allows him to make certain rules; and Clause 5 gives him the opportunity of deciding upon whom the costs and expenses shall fall. All the costs and expenses of an appeal shall be defrayed out of the Police Fund unless the Secretary of State otherwise directs. Clause 6 is the application of the Bill to Scotland, and Clause 7 is the short Title
of the Bill. It is perfectly simple in principle, and, although there may be some details which it is necessary or desirable to amend in Committee, the broad principles of the Bill are clear, and it is because I believe that legislation upon the lines which I have sketched will be generally acceptable to all connected with the police forces in this country that I ask the House now to give the Bill a Second Reading.

Mr. HAYES: I hope there will be, in no part of the House, any definite objection to the principles of this Bill, and I congratulate the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Under-Secretary of State on having had the opportunity of introducing the Bill, which, so far as the police of England, Scotland and Wales are concerned, sets up a very definite mark in getting rid of the possibility of discontent or unrest which may arise from either a right conception or a misconception of the decision of a police authority which means a man leaving his employment, particularly when the man's punishment is not just that of depriving him of that particular job in that particular place, but a punishment that will follow him to the end of his days. I think the very seriousness of that decision justifies the consideration by the Home Office of the principle—and I am glad of the acknowledgment of the principle—of the right of appeal. I am also grateful to the hon. and gallant. Gentleman for the promise that, on points upon which there may be some difference of opinion, he or his right lion. Friend will give careful consideration to them in Committee, and I hope that if he can see his way, as we hope he will, on sonic points which will be reasonably submitted, he will so amend the Bill that it may not be necessary even in years to come to ask for an amendment of the Act.
I believe the success of the Police (Appeals) Bill, when it becomes law, will depend not so much upon the actual wording of the Measure as upon the spirit in which it is applied, both from the point of view of a chief constable, who has a point of view—and no one admits it more readily than I do—and from the point of view of a watch committee, which has to accept its responsibility on behalf of the ratepayers for the management and efficiency of its force;
and I hope also that it will be worked in a very reasonable and sensible spirit by the rank and file of the police forces in the country. It will be appreciated by them as a great concession, and, when one remembers that the police services of this country are very nearly reaching the completion of the first hundred years of their existence, I think it will be something that will be of great interest to all students of police organisation that, at any rate, there has been established in the first century of that organisation a very reasonable recognition—at long last, if I may say so—by the Home Office, as responsible for police administration in the country, that policemen should have this right of appeal. Having said that, I hope the hon. and gallant Gentleman will not expect me to sit down without making one or two points on the Bill.
I think the Bill itself will be responsible for less dismissals or decisions requiring men to resign in the future than in the past, for the very simple reason that a man who may run the risk of being discharged from the police force is not likely to appeal if, as a result of his appeal, facts that have been accepted by the investigating authority have become confirmed by the appeal authority. He would, therefore, be more likely to refrain from appealing than he would be without this Act, when he could grumble about the fact that he had no appeal available at all. From that point of view, I am satisfied that, although the number of dismissals from the police forces in this country might average something from about 150 to 200 per year—which, considering that the force numbers sonic 60,000 men all told, is not a very substantial number—of the number that are discharged, there will be a considerable number of men who would not think of asking for an appeal, because of the character of the offence for which they might be discharged. I say that, because I think the existence of the appeal tribunal that is going to be appointed will be a deterrent to any man to make an annoying appeal or one that really has no basis in justice.
From another point of view, in the decisions that will be arrived at from time to time by chief constables, by watch committees, by the Commissioners of the City and Metropolitan police forces—I say this without any reflection on them as to
the way in which they discharge their duties—I am certain that those officers whose duty it is to present the case to the chief officer of police will be exceedingly careful, by virtue of this Bill, and perhaps more careful in the future than they have been in the past, in collecting the evidence to place before the chief officer of the police. I realise that it is a very heavy responsibility to put upon a chief officer of police, who must, in the interests of discipline, it is often said, accept the word of the officers of his force, if an inspector feels it his duty to report a subordinate for a very serious offence, it may not be serious by one act, but may have become serious by virtue of the fact that the officer may have had several reports against him in the past, culminating in the recommendation to the tribunal inquiring into the case that the man is no longer fitted for the service owing to the reports against him over a period of time. The consequence is that the chief constable is faced with the very painful duty of having to believe his officers in respect of the reports covering a long period, and can come to no other conclusion than that I he constable is unfitted for the police.
We all know that there are cases—and it is the exceptional case that, I am afraid, is responsible for this Bill —in which when a man's cases do not fit, there is a distortion of facts by a superior officer—not necessarily the chief constable or the officer who is working immediately with the officer complained of—or a tendency sometimes to use one's imagination in presenting a case against a subordinate officer. If there have been several offences extending over a period, this right of appeal will make the reporting officer particularly careful that the facts that he does submit are facts that can be established, and the constable himself will have a full and proper opportunity of refuting them when they are submitted. The Bill is limited in its application to those who are required to resign, which is equivalent to a dismissal, and also to those who are directly dismissed without being allowed the concession of tendering their resignation. But there is a feeling that sometimes a punishment can become even worse than dismissal. I have in mind cases of men, inspectors or superior officers, of very long service, admittedly honourable ser-
vice, who, for some offence which I will not specify, but which may have been an act of indiscipline or the result of having a sharp tongue, leading to words of recrimination, may be punished by being reduced from their high rank to the lowest rank in the force, to the rank of constable. I have in mind cases of inspectors who might have been holding the rank, perhaps, only for six months, and who, at the end of that six months, when the probationary report had to be submitted as to whether or not they were fitted to hold the rank, might find themselves doing duty in an area where their superior officers might be men who had come into conflict with them somewhere else in the days gone by, and at the end of that probationary period there might be a report against the inspectors. It leads sometimes to bad feeling, and that may be subsequently followed by the inspectors being reduced in rank.
The House will appreciate this, that to reduce an officer from a high rank to a low rank is one of the greatest punishments that can be inflicted. It often is far worse than a dismissal, though it does not entirely deprive him of the right to some form of pension if he can carry on for the rest of his working days, and we did hope that the right of appeal would have been extended to those cases where men have received such severe punishment that the rest of their service would be without promise of restoration of their rank. However, we do not seek to be carping in our criticism. One is grateful for the recognition of the right of appeal, even if only to those men who are required to resign. The Desborough Committee, of which the hon. Member for Holborn (Sir J. Remnant) and my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens (Mr. Sexton) were members, went very carefully into the whole question of police administration. They were without bias and without prejudice, and I submit that the evidence which was tendered to that Committee was also tendered by the rank and file without bias and without prejudice. I quite accept the statement of the Desborough Committee that this proposal for the right of appeal emanating from the Desborough Committee was not based upon specific instances brought to the notice of the Committee, but was based upon the genuine understanding they arrived at both as to the difficulties of
chief constables called upon to perform a painful duty, and also the difficulties of the bottom dog, who may not get a fair crack of the whip, or, at least, may not think he has got a fair crack of the whip. If he has, and does not know it, then, certainly, in the interest of the chief constable, there should be sonic form of appeal that would give the chief constable continued prestige with the members of the force, if the members knew that the right of appeal existed, and that the chief constable's decision had been confirmed by the appeal tribunal.
Therefore, I feel that the Desborough Committee were very keen upon taking the question of decision out of the hands of anyone or any body directly connected with the service. May I carry on from that part of the Report referred to by the hon. and gallant Gentleman? In paragraph 126, the Desborough Committee say that
On the whole we recommend that the tribunal to hear appeals from forces in England and Wales should be a barrister of standing (possibly a County Court Judge or a Recorder) to be appointed by the Secretary of State for the purpose of hearing such appeals, with one of His Majesty's Inspectors of Constabulary as assessor on technical matters.
This Bill does not give effect to that part of the recommendation of the Desborough Committee. But Clause 2 says:
The Secretary of State, unless it appears to him that the case is of such a nature that it can properly he determined without taking oral evidence, shall appoint one or more persons (one at least of whom shall be a person engaged or experienced in police administration) to hold an inquiry and report to him.
That means, that if the Secretary of State feels that this is not a case for the holding of an appeal inquiry which the man seeks to have, the case cannot in fact proceed beyond the Secretary of State. I am rather sorry that the Secretary of State in this Bill should seek to be the arbitrator as to whether a man should go to an appeal tribunal or not. I think that rather cuts across the principle of the Bill. I do not say it in the sense that I would not trust the case to go to the Secretary of State. I do not care whether he belongs to my own party or the party now in power. I am positive that, in the main, the Secretaries of State do endeavour, as far as they can from the
papers which are put before them, and from the files at their disposal, to come to a decision in accordance with the facts. But I want to feel in this matter that if we are to have an appeal tribunal at all, the responsibility for any decision which may be arrived at is taken out of the hands of those responsible for the administration of the police.
I say that in fairness to the Home Secretary, and I know that if a decision of that kind were giver, by a Home Secretary, the man's colleagues in the force might think the Home Secretary had been rather harsh, or somebody might trace, possibly, the fact that the Home Secretary at some time or other had met the local chief constable. It would not be fair if I did not put these things to the House, because I know the House desires to remove the possibility of friction, and I know these things are said among the rank and file. Whether they be true or not, or whether there be any substance in any such references, the fact remains that such a rumour very quickly spreads, and then arise bias and prejudice, which would be obviated if the Secretary of State did not take unto himself the power to decide whether an appeal should be heard or not.
I hope the Bill, when it comes back from Committee, will be a Bill which will establish definitely, without question, the right of every police officer who has been dismissed, or required to resign, to have his appeal heard, or, at any rate, that it shall he decided by the appeal tribunal whether it shall he heard in person or whether the evidence shall be taken from papers only. When we come to the question of what shall be the appeal tribunal, if the Secretary of State decides to appoint one, we find that the position is this with regard to the English and Welsh police forces, and I am sure the Secretary of State for Scotland will not he anxious to see members of the English and Welsh police forces at a disadvantage as compared with his own force. Perhaps he will give attention to this particular point. Clause 2 states that the Home Secretary:
shall appoint one or more persons (one at least of whom shall he a person engaged or experienced in police administration) to hold an inquiry and report to him.
If you appoint one person, according to this Clause, that one person shall be
a person engaged or experienced in police administration. If the Home Secretary appoints for the English and Welsh police forces one person only to inquire into an appeal, and that one person must be a chief officer of police, one of His Majesty's Inspectors of Constabulary, or some person definitely associated with the police force, it will be readily understood that not unlikely a feeling will grow up that when an officer is appealing from the decision of one chief officer to that of another chief officer, it is almost like appealing from Cæsar to Cæsar, and that is not likely to give the best result. We have no objection to a chief officer of police being a member of the tribunal, in so far as technical matters are concerned. I think that is not an unreasonable suggestion, for I quite appreciate that you must have someone who—to put it in the vernacular—knows the ropes; and there are many ropes in the police to be known, both from the chief constable's point of view and from the point of view of the rank and file. I have no objection at all to a chief officer of police sitting on the tribunal, but I say that where there is only one member of a tribunal, at any rate, he should not be a chief officer of police. I am asking, therefore, that what is good enough for Scotland ought not to be too bad for England and Wales in this particular case. I notice that Clause 6 states:
The provisions of this Act shall apply to Scotland, subject to the following modifications:
(1) Any inquiry and report in pursuance of Section two shall be held and made by the sheriff (excluding the sheriff substitute):
I have not been in any Scottish Court. I hope I never shall be, in the sense that one does not want to have to pay for the experience one gains in that way but I imagine, from my inquiries, that the Sheriff in the Scottish Court is somewhat similar in his appointment to a County Court Judge in this country. I stand, subject to correction on that point, but, at any rate, the Sheriff in Scotland is a, barrister of some standing. On the Labour Benches, we are rather chary of recommending our people to the mercies of the legal profession. My hon. and learned Friend will not mind this observation, but, on the contrary, I think,
will support that part of the Bill which, as far as the Scottish police forces are concerned, says the composition of the tribunal in Scotland is to be one person, and that one person is to be the sheriff. That is exactly the spirit of the recommendation of the Desborough Committee. While it has been accepted as far as the Scottish police forces are concerned, it has been departed from in the case of the English and Welsh police forces. Numerically, the English and Welsh police forces are considerably stronger than the forces in the Scottish area, and in Scotland, apparently, there is no question of there being an assessor representative of the police administration on the tribunal.
In any case, we would ask that if the tribunal is to consist of one person, it should be someone who thoroughly understands the finer points of law and the manner and methods in which evidence should be given on both sides. I, for one, would be quite prepared, as the result of my own experience, to accept a tribunal which, if there is to he only one person, he should be a man of some legal standing, a barrister, say, of five or seven years' experience, or a County Court Judge, or a Recorder. I am sure that the confidence of the police would repose in such a tribunal, and, incidentally, even if you wanted to extend that tribunal for the purpose of informing the chairman, there would be no objection to the chief officer of police sitting on the tribunal, but I do not think it would be regarded as an unreasonable proposition that there should be on the tribunal, sitting also in an assessing capacity, one of the rank of the person who is being tried. That would give the tribunal three members—the chairman, to be a barrister of some standing, and two other persons, one to be nominated by the Home Office to represent the administrative side of the police service, and one to be nominated by the Police Federation of England and Wales, and of Scotland, too, if you extend the principle to Scotland. That person should be of a rank equivalent to that of the person appearing before the appeal tribunal. I hope that point will be considered in Committee.
Further, I find that when the Tribunal, according to this Bill, has done its work, that work can be completely nullified by
the subsequent decision of the Secretary of State. I quite appreciate that the Secretary of State, perhaps, is not prepared to leave in the hands of a tribunal the question of reinstatement in the police force, or the cancelling of the decision of the local police authorities, and that he prefers to accept that responsibility himself. It may, perhaps, be, from his point of view, quite a good thing, but of what value would it be to have an appeal at all, unless the decision of the appeal tribunal was going to be accepted by the Home Office, by the police authorities and by the man himself I want to see some finality in this question of appeal; but, apparently, when the tribunal has done its work, it sends its Report to the Secretary of State, and neither the tribunal nor the police authorities nor the appellant knows what point of view the Home Secretary is going to take. I think it is very difficult to know just why that distinction has been made, because whatever the decision of the tribunal it cannot become effective unless and until the Secretary of State makes an order and prescribes that the appeal is to be allowed, or is to be dismissed, or that the punishment is to be varied by substituting some other punishment. I sincerely hope we shall find eventually that it will be the decision of the tribunal that will be accepted.

Captain HACKING: This is a very important point which the hon. Member is making. He seems to prefer that the responsibility should be placed upon the barrister, or whoever it is, who may be the Chairman of this tribunal, but that individual would have no responsibility to the House of Commons. If the responsibility were placed upon the Home Secretary, he would have to answer to the House of Commons for all his misdeeds, and that would give hon. Members a better opportunity of making their case and making certain that the Home Secretary does not go wrong.

Mr. HAYES: That may be all right, from the point of view of the Home Secretary facing the fire of the House of Commons. He would do that quite cheerfully.

Captain HACKING: The present one.

Mr. HAYES: I hope every Home Secretary would. The present one does it, and does it very well. The man who cannot fight for his Own corner cannot fight for anyone I have no complaint to make about that, and I do not fear that the present Home Secretary even in the strenuous way in which he would defend his own action, would be guilty of an injustice in examining the case; but once he has taken the decision as to whether he will allow an appeal or not, he cannot go back on that decision without losing prestige. As to his being challenged in the House, the hon. and gallant Member himself knows something of the difficulties hon. Members have when challenging decisions of the Home Secretary affecting police service; and in any case it would be rather taking away from the appeal tribunal the judicial functions which we hope it will have. It would be almost an impossible position, I suggest, if an appeal tribunal allowed an appeal and the Home Secretary disallowed it; we should cause more feeling and friction in the service than if the appeal tribunal had disallowed an appeal and it was then the end of the matter. I suggest this is very important, because I am positive that the Home Office, who are sponsoring this Bill, are really anxious to find a way out of the difficulty of making these very serious decisions.
With regard to legislation already in existence, I want to put forward the question of procedure in a case where the tribunal recommends that an appeal should be allowed by the tribunal and the Secretary of State decides that the appeal is to be allowed. Under this Bill, the Secretary of State prescribes the decision and informs the local authority responsible for the particular case that the man has had his appeal allowed and is to be reinstated in the police force. Under Sub-section (4) of Clause 2, any such Order issued by she Home Secretary shall automatically reinstate the appellant in the police force, and it is directed that such service as he would have had if he had not been dismissed shall be reckoned for pension purposes. I appreciate the very careful drafting of that Sub-section in order to get over the difficulty that might arise if a local authority or a local chief resented the decision of the appeal tribunal; out under the Municipal Corporations Act, 1882, and under
the County Police Act, 1839, there still exists an absolute right of dismissal—by watch committees under the Municipal Corporations Act, and by chief constables and standing joint committees under the County Police Act—and it is questionable, even if this Bill became law, whether the local authority would not have some case against obeying the Order of the Home Secretary, unless the powers in those two Acts were repealed. There has been some difficulty over this before. There was one case in the Courts which was not taken to the House of Lords, and, therefore, the position is that we are still where we were, that the Home Secretary is still all-powerful in this matter; but I am anxious that there shall be no question subsequently of a local authority using the ratepayers' money to challenge at law the authority of the Home Secretary. I hope provisions will be introduced into this Bill to repeal the provisions of the two Acts of Parliament to which I have referred.
There is also the question whether an inquiry before the tribunal shall be open to the police service or whether it shall be held in private. In many cases which one can think of a private inquiry might perhaps be better than a public inquiry. I say that because I do not want the plea of Crown privilege to be raised on the question of the production of documents. It might be that when a case was before the tribunal and the appellant demanded the production of certain documents Crown privilege would be pleaded, and under the protection of that plea the police authority might be able to withhold the production of all the documents that are necessary for the appellant's case. Section 3 makes provision for the production of documents, but only gives such power as exists in an ordinary public court, and I know that in many cases when it is a question of the production of papers it is merely necessary to say that the occasion was a privileged one or the documents are privileged and there the matter ends so far as the Court is concerned—so far as it has any right to demand the documents.
By this Bill the Secretary of State is to have the power to make rules governing the tribunal. The rules will be an important part of the structure of this
Bill. I would make the suggestion that in framing the rules the Home Secretary would be acting to his own advantage, and certainly in the interests of obtaining good will throughout the service, if he followed the lines laid down in the Police Act of 1919. By Section 4 of that Act, the Secretary of State makes the Statutory Regulations for the whole of the police forces in England and Wales, and the Secretary of State for Scotland makes the regulations for the Scottish police; but before those regulations are made the draft proposals must be submitted to the body appointed under that Act, which consists of representatives of local authorities, representatives of chief officers of police, representatives of the Police Federation—for the rank and file —and representatives of the Home Office. The proposals must be submitted to them, and any representations they may make must be taken into consideration before the regulations are made absolute. I suggest that any rules formulated under this Bill should be submitted to the Police Council appointed under the Police Act. I quite appreciate that the majority of them are not representative of the rank and file of the police, but I think that from the point of view of getting local authorities to accept this Bill in the spirit in which I am positive the Home Office is putting it forward it would be a real contribution to the effective working of the Bill.
Then there is the question of legal aid. I will be quite frank. This Bill does something more than we expected. Hon. Members may think I am making a bad debating point in saying that, but I say it because I am positive that in the long run the Home Office will find it has been of great value to allow legal aid to be available for the appellant and for the chief officer of police or the local authority in the presentation of their respective cases. I should imagine that any chairman of a tribunal inquiring into a case, particularly if it be an involved one, would much prefer to have it presented by a trained mind, a legal mind, a mind that can marshal all its facts and can plead a cause without any feeling or fear that there is bias or prejudice. I hope before we get rid of this Bill we shall have included provisions under which it will not be necessary to
obtain the consent of the tribunal to the employment of legal aid, but that it will be established as a matter of right that the appellant may be represented by counsel if he so desires. If he is to be restricted to having his case presented by a serving comrade, it does not require very much imagination to see what difficulties may arise. No man can present his own case at a tribunal as well as someone whose mind is not disturbed by the consequences of the decision. A policeman submitting his own case has before him all the time the thought that for the remainder of his life he may be deprived of the means of livelihood to which he has been trained. He becomes over-wrought and over-anxious, and he cannot do himself justice, and in the course of examination or cross-examination he is likely to indulge in mannerisms or in language not calculated to secure the right decision. A man who is to have his case inquired into will do better to be represented, not by a colleague in the police service, but by someone dissociated from the police service entirely.
7.0 p.m.
To ask a constable or a sergeant of the police to represent his colleague at an appeal tribunal is rather putting the test of loyalty and friendship pretty high. I do not say it in any unkind way with regard to Chief Officers of Police. I have on many occasions, when in the service, represented a man's point of view, and I must admit that I never suffered personal victimisation through putting a point of view different from the official's point of view. Some people have an unfortunate habit when they represent a man's case of representing it with some personal feeling, and they also have not the trained experience of putting the case in a cool and calm way, free of feeling. On the other hand, a Chief Officer of Police who is inquiring into disciplinary proceedings nay take exception to a subordinate officer even presenting his case. I do not think I could do better than quote from the report of Sir Leonard Dunning, who is accepted as a very high authority on this matter, and is one of His Majesty's Inspectors of Constabulary. I quote this to show that am not making the statement for the purpose of making any capital, but to get
over some of the difficulties and snags which exist. Sir Leonard Dunning said:
It is not always safe to measure the merits or demerits of a system, be it one of those described or that the regulation, or that recommended by the Desborough Report, on the idiosyncrasis of the individuals who would administer it, and it must be remembered that rot only are there Watch Committees and Watch Committees, but that there are also Chief Constables and Chief Constables.
In the evidence that Sir Leonard Dunning gave to the Desborough Committee he added the words:
and some of them should be swept off the face of the earth.
That is not my statement. I merely quote it to substantiate the claim that with the presentation of these cases it does not do to leave it to the feeling of individual police officers, and I think, in the interests of both sides, legal aid should be available for the police officers. The House will probably think when we are asking it to consider the question whether legal aid should be made available, that we may want to ask the ratepayers or the taxpayers to bear the further burden of the cost. According to the Bill as at present drafted, the police authority may not have legal aid unless certified by the tribunal, in the same way as the police officer. But a local authority may be represented by its clerk. The majority of clerks to local authorities are solicitors, and the prosecuting solicitor for the local authority is the officer of the local authority in many cases. If you do not grant legal aid to the local authority and to the police officers by virtue of this Bill, the local authority may instruct any officers who may be solicitors or barristers, and, in any case, if the chief constable himself represents the case for the authority, the chief constable is sometimes a barrister and certainly has experience in presenting cases in the Court, and the dice is loaded against the officer making the appeal. With regard to the question of cost, you cannot say in the Bill that the cost of every appeal shall be borne by the ratepayer or the taxpayer. There may be some vexatious appeals, and, if there are vexatious appeals, the cost of them should be borne by those responsible for them.
This, I think, will be regarded as a generous offer to the Home Office, to
relieve the local authorities, and police funds, and the Exchequer. The police themselves will, if the Home Secretary will give permission—and he can do it without altering this Bill—make contributions to a fund which will exist for that special and specific purpose. That fund would be administered by the Police Federation for the purpose of providing legal aid for men who appeal. I am positive that, if the Home Secretary would agree to that, the police forces in the country would in return honourably undertake to meet the cost of any appeal so far as their own side is concerned, whether the appeal were allowed or not. I do not think anyone could put the proposal much fairer than that. The hon. and gallant Gentleman might say it is too good a proposal not to have a catch in it. It is what I would say if the Home Office said, "Here is the Appeal Tribunal; just all you ask for." You are quite entitled to ask where is the catch. I will tell you where it is. The catch is this. If the Home Secretary will not give permission for the establishment of this fund, it means that, when an officer makes an appeal to a tribunal, he runs the risk of having to pay the cost, and, if he is going to pay the cost, he will probably lose his job, because he has lost his appeal. In addition to losing his livelihood he is saddled, before he commences his appeal, with the problem of how he can raise the money. If there is an Appeal Fund, he will not have that worry at all. He will at any rate know that, if he is in difficulties in that way, when he presents his appeal he need not be worried. There would be none of these contributions and collections that are made among his comrades to see him over his difficulties. There has been a case just recently in which all the sympathy of the force was in favour of two officers who were prosecuted. They wanted to raise the money necessary for the defence of the men. They could not raise the money, because it is contrary to the existing regulations. If the Home Secretary would give his permission for such a fund to be raised, am positive, in return for that permission, the police force would be prepared to relieve the ratepayers and taxpayers of the possibility of having to pay one cost. We do not intend to divide against this Bill. We particularly want it. It is an acknowledgment of a prin-
ciple for which we are grateful, and I congratulate the hon. and gallant Gentleman on being presented with an opportunity of introducing something which will make history so far as the police forces of this country are concerned.

Sir JAMES REMNANT: I wish to thank my hon. and gallant Friend for at last giving us what we have fought for for so many years, the right of appeal in the police force. There are some items in the Bill which I think might be more conveniently delayed until we get into Committee. That the second Reading will be passed, there can be no question. Practically, everybody is agreed that the matter should go to Committee for discussion of details. The principle of the Bill is one that must be admitted on all sides as only fair and just. The question as to what the tribunal should consist of is a matter for discussion. As a member of the Desborough Committee, to which reference has been made, I would like to remind my hon. and gallant Friend that the Committee had different tribunals suggested before it and discussed them very fully. The three main suggestions were: (1), That the Home Office or, in other words, the Home Secretary should be the final tribunal; (2), that the tribunal should consist of superior officers of other police forces; and (3), that there should be an absolutely independent tribunal which should consist of a County Court Judge or a Recorder assisted by one of the inspectors of constabulary who would act as assessor. After very full consideration of all those three proposals, it was the unanimous decision of the Committee that the last was the best, not only from the men's point of view, but also from the Home Secretary's own personal point of view as well.
I am afraid in these times a great many of us are apt to think that all is well in the police force; that their pay and conditions of work are satisfactory, and that they have nothing to complain of. I am not so sure that it is all as satisfactory as we are apt to think. There are one or two or three grievances which men feel, one of which is going to be remedied under this Bill. We all have a painful recollection of a very efficient officer in the Metropolitan Police Force who imagined himself—I will not go further than that—suffering under a great grie-
vance. He had no right of appeal. He had no chance of putting his case in the first instance such as would have been given him under this Bill. He had no chance of being heard when the whole thing was fresh in the memory. He went out, and he did many illegal things. Who of us would believe otherwise than that, had we had that court of appeal, which was promised so long, that man would have appealed at once to an independent tribunal with, I will not say the certainty, but with the chance, that the service would have been richer by a very efficient officer, and that the man himself would have been spared the subsequent consequences of his action.
I do not wish to pledge myself more at this moment than to say my hon. and gallant Friend can count on me as one of the supporters in carrying out the principle of the Bill, and I promise to give no factious opposition to anything in it. I am out, like a great many others, to do the best we can to remedy undoubted grievances. There will be opposition from some Watch Committees. There are some Watch Committees so good that you would not want any authority they have changed. There are others not quite so good. During the recent troublous months we have had cases where, in the view of the Watch Committee, the Chief Constable has committed an act of administration which was illegal, and in one case, T believe, he was dismissed. After all, the police are human. The police, as far as I know generally, are agreed to be a very excellent and efficient body of men, carrying out their duties with great courage and great devotion. They have a helpfulness, a tact and a great civility. The latter has been disputed lately by one of the chief men in the police farce, who has thrown a stigma upon the force which is not justified. They have the best qualification of the lot, and that is a right understanding of the circumstances by the public. Already, they have earned their gratitude, and we shall do everything we can to see that the discontent which undoubtedly exists at the absence of an independent tribunal will be remedied. If a force be not satisfied and be discontented it cannot be as efficient as we all desire such a great force should be. I promise that, so far as I am con-
cerned, I shall approach this question with one object, and that is to get the best independent tribunal we can for these men, in order that they may feel that they have not to submit to the caprice of superior officers who may possibly have a personal antagonism against the members of the force under them. We want the men to feel that they hate an independent tribunal to which they can appeal to obtain justice.

Mr. KELLY: I want to ask one or two questions on this Bill. Like the last speaker, I have heard of some opposition to this Measure, and I wonder whether that opposition is due to the fact of a misunderstanding as to what is contained in this Measure. I know that watch committees in some parts of the country consider that at present there are adequate opportunities for appeals, but, judging by some of the cases we have heard of, there certainly seems a grievance in this respect which ought to be remedied. I am anxious to know whether this Bill meets the position so far as the metropolis is concerned. The Home Secretary is in close touch with these forces, and it does appear to me to be curious that, after he has come to a decision in the first instance through the officers immediately appointed by him, he should be the one to be appealed to by the police officer who has a grievance. I would ask the Under-Secretary in charge of this Measure to say whether that is the position at this moment. Does it mean that the appeal will have to be made to the Home Secretary who will already have taken a decision to allow a further appeal to be made. I take it the position is that, so far as the provinces are concerned, the appeal against the chief constable can only be to the watch committee and that that is the end of the case, so far as the police officer is concerned. If that be so, I hope that we shall be told of it because certainly one can quite imagine that there should be other opportunities given particularly when a man's livelihood is at stake.
One thing I fail to appreciate is that in Clause 2, Sub-section (2), it is provided that the Horne Secretary, after receiving the report of the Court of Inquiry, may refer that back to the disciplinary authority. Does that mean
that after the inquiry has been held and the finding has been given by the Court of Inquiry, then the matter is sent back to the watch committee, which I take to be the disciplinary authority so far as the provinces are concerned? If that be so, that might meet the objection raised by some of the watch committees at the present time. I was struck with one answer given by the Under-Secretary with regard to the Home Secretary's responsibility to this House in reference to appeals. I hope that this is not one of the early efforts to bring the whole police force of this country under the direct control of the Home Office.
Sub-section (3) of Clause 2 appears to set out that the Home Secretary cannot make a mistake, and it gives his finding as being final and binding upon all the parties. I think it would have been far better if the particular Court which has heard the ease should arrive at a finding, and afterwards there might be an opportunity for this House, if the Home Secretary is going to be responsible for the appeal, of dealing with the matter on evidence that might be brought forward later on. I cannot understand under Clause 3 why it is necessary to insert a penalty ins order to force people to come and give evidence against a police constable. I notice that a penalty of £5 is inserted in the Clause, and this appears to me to be an incitement to somebody to come and give evidence against the police officer whose case is going before the Court of Inquiry.
With regard to the costs imposed upon the appellant, surely it is asking too much that, where a man is appealing against his dismissal from the service and against an action which may take his livelihood away from him, you may have the opportunity of imposing the whole of the costs upon him. There is no industry in this country that would impose such a penalty upon an individual making an appeal to the heads of a trust or any other concern. I hope there will be nothing in the Bill which will tend to make the police fear that the whole cost of the proceedings may be imposed upon them. I hope, therefore, the provision to which I have alluded will be deleted from the Bill during the Committee stage. With regard to the matter of legal representation, it has already been put forward, and I hope it will not be left to the discretion of a
Court as to who shall put up the case, but that the Bill before it becomes an Act will lay down clearly that a man may have the opportunity of being represented by anyone whom he thinks will be able to present his case and give the whole of the facts. I hope the Under-Secretary will answer these few questions to enable us to understand what the Home Office is really thinking on this question.

Mr. CASSELS: As one who has had a good deal to do with the police one way and another, I should like to express some of their feelings with reference to this Measure. They welcome it very much. They have felt for a long time that the method of dealing with charges made against them left a good deal to be desired. This Measure gives the police a final appeal to an independent tribunal. It was a pleasure to me to hear the hon. Member for Edge Hill (Mr. Hayes) pay such a tribute to the legal profession, which is not the usual custom nowadays. I am sure those hon. Members of this House who follow that arduous and ill-paid occupation will be pleased to know that there is at least one Member of the Opposition who for the purposes of this Bill, at any rate, has a good feeling for them. I would like to say that I support the request made by the hon. Member for Edge Hill to the, Home Office that they will very seriously consider allowing the appellant the right to be represented by counsel and solicitor without having to make an application to the tribunal for that purpose.
I say that, not because I have the interest of my own profession at heart—far be it from me to say that, or the interests of other members of it—but I say it in the interests of the appellant. It is idle to suppose that a case which hay gone so far as the tribunal can be adequately presented or met by one who occupies a position in the police force, and who is no more than a mere friend. The word "friend" in this respect is very well known in the administration of courts-martial. It is by no means an unusual thing for a soldier charged with an offence against military law, and who comes before a court-martial, to have a friend. It is very useful to have a friend in time of need, but a friend in such circumstances as that is either useless or else a burden, unless he knows his job. You do not want anybody to
hold the hand of the accused man while he is going through his trial, but you want somebody who can put it up to the other side, and in order adequately to represent the accused man you want either a solicitor or counsel, or both, who will be fearless in his cross-examination of the witnesses, whether they come from the police force or from the public. That position is a very difficult one for a friend who comes from the police force. He may find himself handicapped in putting the accused man's case to the accused man's superior officers, who may be his superior officers as well. No counsel or solicitor would ever feel the difficulties of that position, and I think the tribunal would be very happy to have the assistance on both sides of members of the legal profession in thrashing out a grievance which reached them.
I hope the Home Secretary will consider in Committee this suggestion which has been put forward, and that he will give the police officers this right. I hope it will not be necessary to have to make an application for the privilege of being legally represented before this tribunal. So far as the costs are concerned, that is a matter which might very well be considered by the Home Office when this Bill comes before the Committee. Costs are naturally a matter upon which the legal profession feel very deeply, but it is not a matter which ought to affect a tribunal of this character. It is largely of an administrative type, and therefore there ought not to arise any question of costs. It is a difficult position to realise, that a man may find himself, perhaps, dismissed from the police force, with his prospects of pension gone, may exercise his right under this Bill when it becomes an Act of Parliament and go before the tribunal, lose his case, and find an order made against him for costs. It would be, indeed, a pious hope on the part of the authorities if they ever got any out of him, but let us hope that it will be possible for this tribunal to sit, as, indeed, a court-martial sits, to give a decision upon the case before them and make no order as to costs against the unsuccessful party. The suggestion which has been made by the hon. Member for Edge Hill might well be favourably considered by the Home Office, so as to grant to the police officers who
come before this tribunal that very favourable position, I agree, from their point of view, but a position which, I venture to say, will make this Bill, when it becomes an Act, a very workable scheme.

Mr. SHORT: This Bill seems to bear the stamp of generosity and good intentions, but I could have hoped that its provisions would go much further. For instance, the right of appeal is confined to members of police forces who are dismissed or required to resign. I have had some years' experience in the representation of some thousands of men employed in the Service, and I find that one of the greatest difficulties, one of the greatest grievances, that I had to seek to remedy, was not that of compulsory discharge or resignation, but that of reduction in rank. There is no provision in the Bill dealing with this, and I trust that, when the Committee stage is reached, the Home Office may see their way to extend the provisions of the Bill in this direction, so as to include officers who suffer reduction in rank, and who, in consequence, although they will be in a lower rank, will remain in the Service, possibly with no further opportunity of rising again.
I should like to support the point made by the hon. and learned Member for West Leyton (Mr. Cassels) in regard to the constitution of the Court so far as England and Wales are concerned. I think it is essential that, apart from a Court sitting with some assessor with technical experience. We should have a Court consisting of some person or persons with trained mi ads, capable of sifting evidence; and, as they are to take evidence upon oath, I think that someone occupying a high position in the law ought to sit on a Court of this character. The other blemish which I observe in the Bill, and which I hope will be remedied, is the fact that the action arising from the decision of the Court rests entirely with the Home Secretary. The Under-Secretary made it perfectly clear that that was for the purpose of protecting the constitutional rights of this House in any criticism that it might reasonably level against the Home Secretary, and, in so far as that is the case, it is an excellent excuse; but, on the other hand, I do think that the decision of the Court ought to reach some measure of finality
in its application, and possibly some amendment may be made during the Committee stage.
Finally, I think that, as the Home Office intended to be generous when they drafted this Bill, they ought to err on the side of generosity, and ought to allow the police the opportunity of appearing before this Court without involving themselves in high costs. If the Home Office cannot see their way to do that, they might reasonably accept the proposal put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Edge Hill (Mr. Hayes), that the Force might be afforded the liberty of providing the means whereby these appellants might meet the costs to which they might be put in presenting their appeal. Personally, I think the will is worthy of our support, and, as one who has taken some interest in the various legislation affecting the police since 1918, I shall watch with interest its passage through Committee, and hope to see it reach the Statute Book at an early date.

Captain HACKING: I am exceedingly grateful to the House for the way in which they have received this Bill. The criticism which has been levelled against the Bill has been of a very helpful character, and I can assure the House that all the points that have been raised will be taken note of and gone through very carefully, and, if it is possible, when the Bill goes before a Committee, to accept any of the suggestions that have been made in the House this afternoon, we will do so. I cannot at this moment answer, and it would not be right that I should attempt to answer, all the points that have been raised, many of them very technical in character, but I am especially grateful for the observations of my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn (Sir J. Remnant), who took a very large part, in the deliberations of the Desborough Committee, and I am very grateful also, if I may say so, to the hon. Member for Edge Hill (Mr. Hayes), who has had such a large experience in police matters himself. The only point that I would like to mention now, in reply to the hon. Member's observations, is in connection with the appeal which he thinks ought to be allowed against reduction in rank. The hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Short) also suggested that there should be an appeal against a reduction in rank in the same way in which we propose
now an appeal against dismissal. As the hon. Member knows, this question was not considered by the Desborough Committee, and I think that that is an indication that they considered that, at any rate for the time being, we were going fair enough. Apart from that, there must be finality somewhere. If we grant an appeal against reduction in rank, appeals may be demanded against other consequences of possible indiscretions. We have to stop somewhere. To-day we are making great and important concessions which will be welcomed throughout the police forces of the country, and I think we cannot extend the principles of the Bill any further than is laid down in the Bill as it passes the Second Reading. Most of the other points, as I have said, are Committee points, and will be dealt with carefully and given full consideration when the Committee stage is reached.
I was asked one or two direct questions by the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly). He assumed that the disciplinary authority of the Metropolitan Police Force was the Home Secretary, but that is not so; the Commissioner of Police is the disciplinary authority. The Secretary of State, as the police authority, has a general responsibility for the management of the Force, but he has no direct disciplinary authority, and there is no appeal to the Home Secretary at present from the decision of the Commissioner. Then the hon. Member asked with regard to the borough police forces. The disciplinary authority in the ease of borough police forces is the Watch Committee, and not the chief constable. The disciplinary authority in connection with the county police forces is the chief constable, and not the Standing Joint Committee. There was one other point that the hon. Member raised in connection with the Bill. In reference to Sub-section (2) of Clause 2, which deals with the question of further consideration by the disciplinary authority, he asked why the Home Secretary should have power to remit for further consideration by the disciplinary authority.

Mr. KELLY: I asked whether it meant that this would be referred back to the Watch Committee.

Captain HACKING: It means this, as far as I read it, that, if the Home Secretary is not satisfied that he has received
the fullest possible information from them, or is not satisfied with the report he has received from the tribunal, perhaps because of lack of information, he may remit the case back to the disciplinary authority for further information. I hope I have answered the points put to me in the form of actual questions. The other points, as I have said, will have full consideration, and I would ask the House now to give the Bill a Second Reading.

Mr. HAYES: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman inform the House whether this Bill will, in fact, apply to all the police forces to which the Police Pensions Act, 1921, applies, that is to say, the City of London, the Metropolitan, the county and borough, and the River Tyne police forces?

Captain HACKING: I am rather doubtful when the hon. Member puts to me a question like that, and I should prefer to have notice of it. To the best of my belief, however, it does apply to all the forces in the country. It certainly applies to the Metropolitan and the City forces, and it must apply to all the forces in the country. I feel no hesitation in stating that now, but if on further investigation I find that there is something more behind the hon. Member's question than I imagine at the moment, I may have an opportunity of correcting it.

Mr. SPEAKER: Business has been set down for 8.15, and the sitting will be suspended until that time.

Sitting suspended at Seventeen Minutes before Eight o'clock.

NECESSITOUS AREAS.

Mr. COMPTON: I beg to move,
That the abnormal industrial conditions through which the country has been passing having placed upon local authorities in many areas burdens which cannot be met from local resources, and having regard to the fact that heavy local rates enter directly
into the cost of production and thus hamper industrial revival in the areas affected, it is in the national interest that the community as a whole should accept some responsibility for these exceptional local burdens.
As the wording of the Motion indicates, we are concerned primarily with bringing this matter forward as a plea for the industries of this country. Many of us on these benches feel that the attitude of the Government on this question has changed very considerably during the past 18 months or two years. I am reminded of the speech made by the Prime Minister on 29th June, 1925, when he said:
He was concerned with black spots in industry, and he was considering whether anything could be done by subsidies in specially distressed districts in aid of rates, to take that burden off those who manufacture in those districts.
We are in accord with that statement of the right hon. Gentleman, and in bringing forward this Motion we wish to draw the attention of the Government to the fact that in this question of the equalisation of rates we have, especially in the industrial centres, more distress to-day than we have ever had during the whole course of many years. One has only to look even at the position of the shipbuilding and the iron and steel trades to try to visualise the position not only of those who run those particular industries, but also the position of the hundreds of thousands of men who at one period or another found employment in those great basic industries and to-day are, unfortunately, either in receipt of unemployment benefit or in receipt of Poor Law relief from the guardians. Such industrial centres as Middlesbrough, Sheffield and Manchester, to name only three, are to-day experiencing unemployment on a scale quite unprecedented in the history of those districts. We are told, on reliable authority, that in the case of Middlesbrough alone over 50 per cent. of the insured persons in the district are to-day in receipt of unemployment benefit, and that very many more whose benefit has run out are in receipt of Poor Law relief.
This question of the Government transferring the cost of unemployment from the Insurance Act to the Poor Law authorities is adding a very heavy burden to the rates of those particular districts where unemployment is very heavy. We
cannot do other than look around at such districts as Oxford, Bournemouth, Cheltenham, Southport or the West End of London, where we find the rates, on the average, are less than 8s, in the £. When we look to the unfortunate industrial areas we find that in Sheffield the rates are 18s. in the pound, in Birmingham, a city which supplies four Ministers to the Government, 16s. in the pound—I am sure that hon. Members opposite will not say that in the City of Birmingham, with its political colour, the Socialists have run wild and been responsible for an increase in the rates up to 16s.—Bristol, 15s. 8d.; Leeds, 16s.; Stoke, 16s. 10d., and Salford, l5s. 9d. I have only mentioned a few of the industrial areas where the rates are excessive, and very heavy for industry to bear. It is also the fact that in these particular industrial centres—one could go through a hundred of them—even in what may be termed an industrial centre of the smallest type, 500 out of every 10,000 of the population are drawing Poor Law relief; but when we come to Durham or the shipbuilding centres of the North East Coast we find that the record of those in receipt of Poor Law relief runs to almost 5,000 out of every 10,000 of the population in the area.
These are appalling facts, and they are facts which no Government can afford to ignore. They are facts which the country is facing and realising every day, and
with the object of bringing pressure to hear upon the Government we have brought forward this Resolution. Another instance of the great burden which Poor Law relief means to industry can be cited in the fact that prior to the outbreak of war in Middlesbrough the local rates were equal to an amount of 1s. per ton of steel produced, and to-day those local rates amount to just over 6s. on every ton of steel produced in the area. That is a very terrible burden, and it is a burden which has increased more particularly since the issue by the Minister of Labour of his Circular in February, 1921, whereby he claimed to have given instructions for certain tightening up of the payment of benefit under the Unemployment Insurance Act. That tightening up has meant in many of the districts to which I have referred an increased burden which causes great anxiety to those responsible for the administration
of the districts concerned, when they have to meet their charges.
The issue of that Circular is computed by the local authorities in Sheffield to have put an additional cost on the City of Sheffield of £245,000. The current expenditure on Poor Law in Sheffield is reckoned to be about £700,000, and they are now borrowing more money in order to try to meet their liabilities. What applies to Sheffield applies to every other industrial centre throughout the country. Those responsible for local administration have been forced to write off huge sums because they are unable to collect the rates from the industrialists and workers who have not the wherewithal to pay. I can speak as a magistrate of the City of Manchester, where we have summonses by scores and scores against those who are unable to pay their rates and meet their liabilities, owing to the increasing burdens. I cannot do better than read a statement made by the chairman of the finance committee of the Manchester City Council, Alderman Goldschmidt, whose Conservatism cannot possibly be questioned, and who is well known in the North as one of the staunchest supporters of the party opposite. In introducing his Budget last year he made this very important statement with reference to the Minister of Labour's Circular:
Since the regulations governing the payment of unemployment insurance benefit to insured persons were amended there seems to have been a movement of persons who have become ineligible for the payment of the cash benefits of the Employment Exchange on to the books of the guardians and the poor rate. In Manchester for the year 1925 the total number of persons registered at the Employment Exchange fell by 8,485, and for the same period the number of persons receiving poor relief from the guardians rose by 8,338: consequently the cost of providing for the immediate effects of unemployment would seem to be increasingly transferred from the Government and its taxes on to the local authority and its rates. The transfer of this financial burden will be felt in the augmented guardians' requirements from the poor rate for the current year.
That is a statement made by a gentleman who is well known in the north of England. So bad had the position become in the North that not only in Lancashire and Cheshire but in all parts of the north-western area conferences were held, and the outcome of these conferences was the important deputation
which waited on the Prime Minister and several members of the Cabinet on the 19th February last year. The case was put to the Prime Minister by the Lord Mayor of Manchester and it was supported by other representatives from other parts of the north-western area, and in reply the Prime Minister, guarded as usual in his statements, he certainly was not in a position to pledge his Government, said:
You naturally ask me what I am going to do as the result of this deputation. I think it is obvious that I cannot withdraw the circular, but I can say that I have listened with very great interest to all that has been said.
That evidently was not very satisfactory to the gentlemen who were responsible for introducing the deputation. But the Prime Minister went a little further and said:
From what the Lord Mayor of Manchester and other speakers have said, I have no doubt that there is a feeling that we are dealing very harshly with schemes that have been submitted up to date, that you urge that you have only prepared them at cost to yourselves under pressure from Government Departments, and that you feel that to refuse them wholesale would be to deal with you harshly, to say the least of it. Well, without having had time to examine the details, I think there is something in that view, and, when considering with my colleagues what has been so admirably represented to-day by the speakers of this deputation, I should be quite willing to look sympathetically upon a scheme which had been prepared in response to our invitations. More than that I am not prepared to say at this moment, but I am impressed by what you have said on this point, and we will take counsel together on those lines and in the light of what we have heard this morning.
It was interesting to await the outcome of the counsel which the right hon. Gentleman was to take with his colleagues, and as a result of lobbying on the part of the Lord Mayor and certain members of the City Council of Manchester, the Manchester Members of this House brought pressure to bear on the Minister of Labour and the Prime Minister in order to obtain a reply to this deputation. On the 31st August last year, the Minister of Labour sent this reply on behalf of the Cabinet:
I am sorry to refuse your request, but I am afraid that I cannot hold out any hope of a grant being given to the Manchester area from the Unemployed Grants Committee.
I do not know what forces were at work inside the Cabinet which led to this decision. One can imagine the meeting in the Cabinet room at Downing Street and the opposition which was put forward to increased grants to local authorities. One can imagine a little mouse coming out from a corner, looking round, listening to the discussion in the Cabinet, and then scampering away back into its nest whispering to its mates. "Heaven help the country on a night like this!" By refusing these grants the Government are imposing an extra burden on local rates, and the position of local authorities is now well nigh unbearable. The position is gradually getting worse. Not satisfied with tills turning down of the request by the Minister of Labour, the Lancashire and Cheshire and northwestern areas, by their secretary, sent forward a further request, on the [...]i, December last year, in which he said:
I would remind you that our local authorities are receiving strong representations from local chambers of commerce, or similar organisations of an entirely nonpolitical character impressing upon Them the serious burden of rates upon industry, and adducing evidence of their effect in preventing industry from successfully meeting foreign competition for orders. I believe, therefore, that, we are representing the views of the majority of all sections of the community in asking you to reconsider the matter with a view to continuing to assist local authorities to meet the present immediate emergency which is, after all, a problem of a national character.
In our Motion we claim that this is a national responsibility and that in the interests of the country the industrial areas ought not to be called upon to bear the burden any longer. In our circular we point out to the Minister of Labour that in March, 1925, there were 215,000 persons registered as unemployed in the north western area, and at the last census, that is in September or October last year, that number had increased to over 250,000. Therefore, in these areas the responsibility is increasing week by week. Now I turn to the schemes which have been put forward by local authorities in their applications for grants from the National Exchequer. All the schemes that have been put forward by local authorities are sound schemes which will provide work for the unemployed and be a benefit and a boon to the particular districts in which the work is carried out. No one can say that the spending of money on roads is a waste of
national funds. Then there is the question of sewage. The north western area have brought forward schemes for putting down new sewage plant, refuse destroying plant, all of which will tend to the benefit of the health of the community. But all these schemes have been ruthlessly turned aside; we have been told that there is no money for them. It is admitted that in the year ending September, 1926, there was sanctioned in grants £11,000,000 as against £21,000,000 for the year previously. That also throws an extra burden on local rates. The very fact that less money has been given in grants proves that fewer people are being employed, and these people must be fed and their dependants supported; and so local rates have to bear the burden.
I want to draw attention to the Amendment, standing in the names of the hon. Member for Beading (Mr. H. Williams) and the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Berner). I am waiting to hear them make a reasoned case against this Motion. I believe the country is heartily sick of all this anti-Socialist nonsense and wants something more reasoned and reasonable. If the hon. Members opposite want any further proof of the feelings of the country they have had it in the last few days in the by-elections which have taken place. We often hear stories in this House about the abuses of the Unemployment Insurance Act and the Poor Law, but we have not yet been called upon to face any actual charges in connection with the Unemployment Insurance Act or of the work of boards of guardians. I cannot do better than quote from the Blanes-burgh Committee's Report and their very definite answer to this charge. They said:
Throughout the inquiry we have constantly had brought to our notice the conviction held by many that the system of unemployment insurance is subject to widespread abuses. It has, accordingly, been one of our principal preoccupations to ascertain how far this belief is justified. It is convenient to state at once the conclusion we have reached in this matter. It is true that a certain number out of lit millions of insured persons have received relief to which they had no claim. But it is equally true that these cases are relatively few.
The Committee add:
We are confirmed in this favourable conclusion by the result of inquiries made by us in different quarters where it seemed likely that abuses, if they existed generally, would be notorious. The Secretary of the Charity Organisation Society very candidly says that he began by thinking the abuses serious, but on inquiry he had been unable to find them.
I expect the good anti-Socialist Secretary of the Charity Organisation Society would have his word accepted by hon. Gentlemen opposite. Since the Armistice we have spent £360,000,000 on unemployment benefit and in relief of able-bodied men by boards of guardians —money for which actually no service was rendered to the country. There is no more wasteful way of spending money. It is a wise move to spend money on work, and the local authorities have been wise in their day and generation in putting forward their claims to the Government. We hope that as a result of this Motion the Government will have a further incentive to do something for these people. One is reminded of the statement made by an illustrious statesman who for many years adorned the Front Bench in this House. The late Mr. Joseph Chamberlain might well claim to have given a new charter to local authorities. He issued the first Circular to local authorities urging them to find honest work for the unemployed to do in their districts, and not to drive them to the workhouse or to seek Poor Law relief. One can remember the time when Mr. Chamberlain made something of a slogan of the statement, "Do not, for Heaven's sake, drive men to the poor house."
We feel that the position to-day is such, that not only are men driven to seek Poor Law relief, but there is in the country to-day a greater number of men and women, tired men and broken-hearted women with underfed children, who do not come out into the open to advertise their poverty, who keep their poverty hidden in their poor homes and slum dwellings. On behalf of these people, and of industry generally, we appeal to the Government to try to do something. In addition to these men and women there are hundreds of thousands of ex-service men—men who served their country in the time of their country's need, men who were told by
politicians of all ranks during the War period that a grateful country would never desert them and that they would always be remembered. These men made a human wall between this country and destruction, and I say it is a scandal that they should to-day be in receipt of Poor Law relief, and an even greater scandal that they should be found selling matches or turning piano organs in the streets, or should he seen on the way to the workhouse with the gates staring them in the face. I appeal to the Government to do something on behalf of distressed and necessitous areas. If that appeal be answered, I feel sure that the Government will be amply repaid by the thanks of grateful people who to-day cannot find work though they are only too anxious to get it.

Mr. CHARLES EDWARDS: I beg to second the Motion.
Once again we are dealing with the question of necessitous areas. We have dealt with it on many occasions before, but we have not got very far with it yet. I suppose the term "necessitous areas" is one that was not heard before 1921, although since then it has become one of the common terms in daily use. Many reasons could be given for the present state of some necessitous areas. Sometimes management is blamed for it, or mismanagement, whichever way you care to put it. We have heard much of the negligence and the irregularity of certain areas, but the Minister, when he comes to reply, will no doubt tell us that those areas which have come in for the most severe blame are only an infinitesimal part of the total number of necessitous areas. The reason for the difficulties of many areas is unemployment and unemployment alone. Before 1921 these areas were scarcely ever heard of; at any rate, they were not as notorious as they are to-day. They were known, of course, but they selected their guardians, the guardians sent out their precepts and the money was collected, the work of administration was carried on, and all was done satisfactorily. In 1921 we came into contact with unemployment as we had never known it before, and Poor Law authorities were called upon to deal with matters with which they were never intended to deal and which they should never have dealt with from the beginning.
We have contended all along, and, I think, rightly, that this ought to have been a national charge from the start. Unemployment has hit certain districts, while others have gone free. There are district; which, as far as rates are concerned, know nothing about unemployment, because it does not exist there. The whole system of rating and taxation ought to be overhauled. The Poor Law system, outside unemployment, is unfair as between one district and another. Highly industrialised districts have their poor more than others have. When we last discussed this subject, I think it was the right hon. Member for Carmarthen (Sir A. Mond) who suggested as a remedy larger areas, and he indicated county areas or something even larger. We say that the whole country ought to be the area, and that nothing less than a nationalised system will be fair either to ordinary Poor Law relief or to unemployment relief.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): The Motion does not say so.

Mr. EDWARDS: The Motion does not go as far as I would like it to go. It does not go as far as the proposal made from this side on the Scottish Poor Law (Emergency Provisions) Bill the other day. On that Bill the Minister agreed to a payment of 40 per cent. by the State, and, though that was something, it was not as much as I would have liked. I was delighted at the fight the Scotsmen made for the assumption of the whole burden by the State. Our case is much stronger than that. The Scottish case was a case for dealing with money that had been spent in last year's industrial dispute. Our case to-night is very different. The Scottish side of the case was not beard of until last year, but these necessitous areas and their problem have existed since 1921, and the problem has been acute during the whole of that period. It is unemployment and that alone which is responsible for the present position of necessitous local authorities. I have here the Bedwellty case. I suppose I had better deal with my own district. I represent Bedwelity, but, of course, only part of the Poor Law area of Bedwellty. I happen to live in the Newport union and part of my constituency is in that union, but
I also represent part of Bedwellty union, which, I suppose, gave the name to my constituency. I propose to give a few figures in regard to that area, because this board of guardians has come under the very severe ban of the Ministry of Health. Whether they have done so deservedly or not I will not say, though I think their action may not be as deserving of this punishment as some people seem to think. The rates called for by overseers during the year ending 31st March, 1914, amounted to £96,985, and the whole of that sum was collected. In the year ending March, 1921, the amount called for was £345,462, and the same amount was collected.
So, in this terribly bad area, during those years when things were normal and before we knew unemployment, every penny of the rates was collected, but in 1927 the amount called for was £278,879, of which only £132,968 was collected, leaving a balance of uncollected rates in one single year of £145,911. The total amount of rates uncollected is £226,047. The average poor and district rate for the half year ended 30th September, 1914, was 5s. 4d. For the half year ending 31st March, 1927, it is 9s, 8d. The half-yearly poor rate, over the whole union since the War shows an average of 13s. 8d. per half year, and the poor and district rate 18s 4d. per half year. All this is due to unemployment and to nothing else. In the parish of Aberystwyth which includes our district—we have heard many times in this House of Nantyglo and Elaine—the poor rate is 15s. per half year and the district rate no less than 21s. per half year. Nearly everybody was living on the rates in that district, and they are largely doing the same thing to-day. In 1914 those in receipt of relief represented only 1.9 per cent. of the total population, but now the figure is 12.5 per cent., and that is excluding the unemployed miners and their dependants. If they were included, the figure would be very different indeed. The amount of out-relief given as a result of unemployment from 1921 to 19th February, 1927, excluding relief given to miners and their families during the last year was £676,737, or getting on towards £1,000,000, all of which is directly attributable to unemployment in this one area. The loans raised since 1921 amount to £1,109,000, and they have repaid only £97,575. It is estimated that
£600 a week is paid to those who for various reasons have been cut off from the Employment Exchanges.
This is another matter which has hit these districts very hard indeed. Every time the rules have been tightened up, people have been turned from the unemployment fund on to poor relief. They have nowhere else to go if there is no work in the locality. To go back again to the particular case of Nantyglo and Blaina, I wish to show the House how difficult is the position of these unions when they have not only to meet requirements for increased relief, but when their sources of income are affected. The two things operate together against these districts. The assessable value of the collieries in this district in 1920 was £20,916. By September, 1922, or in about a year and a half that was reduced to £4,818. Since then four or five of these collieries have been struck off the valuation lists altogether. I suppose they are idle, and so far as one can see, they will remain idle. Collieries are assessed on the basis of output, and when their rating capacity is at its lowest the guardians' expenditure in relief is at its highest.
The hon. Gentleman who is representing the Government to-night spoke boastingly the other day of the improvement which he claimed had been made by the Commissioners appointed to carry on the administration ion in West Ham, and he said the union had ceased borrowing. That might be a very sad thing if we knew all the truth about it, and if we could see into some of these homes and realise the hardship and poverty brought about by this course. The cessation of borrowing is achieved by hitting the very poorest of the poor, and I have no doubt, if we could sec all the results of it, we should find them enough to make angels weep. Great poverty must have been caused by these reductions both in West Ham and in Bedwellty. In Bedwellty the Commissioners have reduced the number of recipients from 16,561 to 11,572. I dare say the hon. Members whose names appear on the Paper as Mover and Seconder of an Amendment to this Motion will say that this is splendid work. It may be splendid work from their point of view just now, but it may turn out to be very bad work, and work which would make us ashamed of ourselves if we could see all its results.
Since they have been put in office they claim to have reduced the payments by, I think, £500 in one week, and they have compelled people to walk five miles in order to receive relief. People living in Rhymney have to walk down to New Tredegar, a matter of five miles, and these are people who have been living for years in the direst poverty, who scarcely have shoes to their feet. The maximum payment that the guardians in this area were making was 38s. 6d. a week. That is not a great amount, and I think it was arrived at by agreement with the Ministry of Health. Every time the guardians had a new loan, conditions were imposed to which they agreed with the Ministry, so that their crime could not have been a very had one. This maximum payment only represents 22s. 3d. per week in pre-War value, and it applies to families of any size, no matter how large. It is not much to gloat over that the Government have reduced that sum. It is certainly nothing to boast about.
I have particulars here of another union, the Merthyr Tydvil Union which has been very hardly hit indeed. Every industry in Merthyr Tydvil was stopped for a long time. I think there is one pit going at last. All the collieries were stopped and the men were idle. They had to live either on relief or on unemployment benefit, whichever was forthcoming, and they were mostly on the rates. In the week ended 5th February the number of persons in receipt of relief there as a result of unemployment was 10,462 at a weekly cost of £2,121. It is estimated that the expenditure under this head will amount to over £100,000 a year with only one colliery working in the whole district. This without cost of administration represents a rate of 3s. in the £, a much higher rate than some unions know of or have ever experienced. Between the years 1921 and 1926 nearly £700,000 has been raised for the relief of unemployment in this area. Why should this area and other industrial areas be penalised in this manner, when other districts go free of such expenditure altogether. I think we have the strongest possible case, not merely for an Exchequer grant in relief of these areas, but for the Exchequer taking over the whole burden. That can easily be done,
and it would be much fairer and more just to all concerned. It is easy to ascertain the amount which has been paid in these areas owing to unemployment.
I have the Newport Guardians' figures here, and I suppose my lion. Friend opposite would call that a good union. They have not sought any loans, and that is a great thing. They are, of course, a mixed union, both industrial and agricultural, but I find that they have got into debt with the bank to the amount of £200,000, and that they have to find £45,000 by the 25th of this month, and I am told that that £45,000 means a 10d. rate for Newport, which would be, I suppose, about half the rate of many unions in this country, but is in this case simply for this one repayment to the bank. There are other repayments that the Ministry has ordered, and they are to pay £55,000 further, by three half-yearly instalments. It only shows that what would be called the best conducted and best administered unions are suffering in this way. I have some figures relating to London, showing how differently this rating applies to different districts. At Bethnal Green a 1d. rate brings in £2,285, but at Kensington a 1d. rate brings in £10,540; in Poplar it brings in £3,749, but in Westminster no
less than £33,970. It only shows how unequal things are and how the whole system ought to be gone into and put on some better, fairer, and more just basis. I have also some comparisons of rateable value per head of population. At Bournemouth it is £11 7s. 3d., but at Barnsley it is only £3 19s. 6d.; at Bexhill it is £12 9s. 2d., but at Merthyr Tydvil £3 10s. 3d., and so we could go on with a long list 3f that sort. In 10 selected areas unemployment was 58 per cent. of the total population, and in 10 other selected areas it was only 1–6 per cent.: those are the two extremes.
9.0 p.m.
In December, 1925, which is the latest figure available, the average unemployment in insured trades for the whole country was 11.4 per cent., but in the shipbuilding industry on the North-East Coast it was 51 per cent., in marine engineering 39.5 per cent., and in iron and steel 26.6 per cent. A question was put last week in this House asking whether it was not a fact that £241,000 had been paid to men whose names had been struck
off the unemployment register in Sheffield, from February, 1925, to January, 1927, and the reply was in the affirmative. That is the sum for one city alone. In South Wales a fortnight ago there were 74,000 miners idle, and I suppose it would be said to-day that we can expect from 40,000 to 50,000 men will be permanently displaced in South Wales as miners. That shows how serious unemployment is in these districts. The Minister has great powers. The power to grant loans gives him great power, because when the local authorities come for money, they have to comply with the conditions which he imposes. Not content with that, the right hon. Gentleman sought other powers, and got them, and he now has the right to displace properly appointed men. All I have to say on that is that I am not sure it is not a good thing. It is a good precedent. There are a lot of guardians in this country whom we do not like, guardians who think more of the rates than of the poor, and now we need not take the initiative in dealing with such guardians, because we have a precedent to go upon. I am not sure it is not a good thing from that standpoint, but there is another good precedent, and that is that we have asked many times for the out-of-pocket expenses of men attending the meetings of local authorities. We have been refused. Now, however, they not only get these expenses, but a good salary in addition, so that we have another thing which I think we might be proud of, another precedent to go upon, which, if the Labour party are worth their salt, they will not forget when they come into power.
We hear a lot about Russia to-day, and nothing can happen without it being said that the great danger is Russia, or Moscow. It is the silliest thing I have ever heard. The great danger to this country is unemployment. We have thousands of boys in this country who have grown up into men and have never done a day's work yet. That is the serious part of it. We have thousands of others living on what we call the "dole," or living on their wits, which is a very serious thing for this country indeed. I must confess that if unemployment cannot be tackled, I do not look with any pleasure on the future. What we want is work, and not unemployment benefit. I wish we could do away with
unemployment and that work could be found for every man. Then I should have some hope of our country again, but if men are to loaf at street corners, with nothing to do, living how they can, it is a very serious position of affairs and one that we greatly deplore. Unless work can be found, men must he kept, but the great thing is work, after all. I look upon unemployment, and not that nonsense about Russia, as the great danger to this country and one that ought to be very seriously tackled. I have here the Report of what is called the Goschen Committee. I do not know what it was appointed for, unless to look into the different suggestions that had been made to deal with unemployment and to find out the weaknesses of them and report those weaknesses to the Minister. They say:
We have to report that none of the schemes placed before us can he regarded as providing a fair and equitable basis of distribution of special assistance from the Exchequer. The terms of our reference necessarily restricted us to an examination and report upon the schemes submitted. Certain members of the Committee wish, however, to record their opinion that it is not impossible to adopt some of the principles embodied in those schemes, so as to give a basis of assistance to areas which are suffering severely from the heavy burdens due to post-War conditions.
I feel that this Motion does not go far enough. The whole of this burden ought to be taken over, and it will never be fair, one district as against another, unless it is taken over. However, whatever offers may be made would, of course, be welcome, because it would ease the burden, but it can never be fair unless the whole cost of this unemployment is taken over by the Exchequer.

Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: I beg to move, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words
this House deprecates any increase in the grants by the Exchequer to local authorities except under conditions which involve local authorities being responsible for the results of extravagant expenditure incurred by them, and considers that the method of giving Exchequer subventions to local authorities should be reviewed under a general reconsideration of the relations of national and local taxation with a view to assistance being given to the more heavily burdened areas.
I think we have all listened with interest and pleasure to the two speeches which
have been made so far, but if I may say so with deep respect to the two hon. Members, interesting as their speeches were, their connection with the Motion was a little difficult to find, I endeavoured, however, to make a few notes while they were speaking, and I want, for the moment, to emphasise points of difference rather than points of agreement, because, frankly, there were substantial points of agreement between myself and the hon. Members. I want, however, to draw attention to one or two things where I find myself in disagreement. The hon. Member for Gorton (Mr. Compton), who moved the Motion, said that the Government were transferring the burden from the insurance fund to the Poor Law. That is a rather serious statement. I have before me the "Labour Gazette" for February, and on page 67 is given the usual monthly statement. During the period from the 14th December to the 10th January, the Committees admitted for benefit 257,407 persons. They refused under one general classification 29,509. That general classification was the classification of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1924, for which the party opposite was responsible. There were also refused under another classification, for which the Insurance Act of 1925 was responsible, 15,564. I would like to point out that, under the first classification, the; whole of the people who were rejected for benefit would be, I think, compelled to seek assistance from the Poor Law, that is those refused benefit under the Act passed by the late Labour Government. A right hon. Gentleman opposite says, "Nonsense!" What are these conditions?
General conditions. Not normally insurable and not seeking to obtain a livelihood by means of insurable employment.
Obviously, no one is going to look after him.
Insurable employment not likely to be available.
I cannot see anyone looking after him outside the Poor Law.
Not a reasonable period of insurable employment during the preceding two years. Not making every reasonable effort to obtain suitable employment or not willing to accept suitable employment.
In all those four disqualifications there is no one who can help the people except
the Poor Law. But when we come to the next five classes, the five classes disqualified under the Act passed in 1925 by the present Government, which affected, roughly, half the number affected by the Act passed by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, we find "single persons residing with relatives." Where relatives are in a position to maintain them, quite obviously in that case there is no need for recourse to the Poor Law. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] The "special conditions" only relate to single persons whose relatives are in a position to maintain them. That is the statutory Regulation.
Married women who could look for support from their husbands.
Married men who could look for support from their wives.
Persons working short time, but earning sufficient for maintenance.
All these four classes are classes where real hardship is not involved, and recourse to the Poor Law is not involved by disqualification. The only people who might be thrown on the Poor Law were aliens. There were 16. These special disqualifications apply only to extended benefit. It is quite clear that out of, roughly, 45,000 people disqualified from benefit, two-thirds were disqualified under the Act for which the right hon. Gentleman opposite was responsible. I mention that because the hon. Member for Gorton spoke of the present Government transferring the burden from the Insurance Fund to the Poor Law. So far as it is being transferred, it is being transferred under an Act of Parliament for which the Party opposite was responsible.
Some reference was made by the hon. Member for Gorton to the Manchester district, where, he said, there had been a drop of 8,000 in the live register and an increase of 8,000 seeking Poor Law relief. I am not in a position to deal with those particular figures, but I may point out that a disqualification from benefit does not remove anybody from the live register. They are only removed by their own act, and there is, therefore, no connection between the facts. He also said that in the north-west area conditions were getting worse week by week. I have in front of me the same document, which shows that on the 31st January, 1927, there were 259,293 persons in the northwest area on the live registers—a decrease of 17,804 as compared with the
24th December, 1926, which does not look like an increase week by week. And that period covers the period of the Christmas dismissals. [HON. MEMBERS: "What Christmas dismissals?"] I say quite deliberately "Christmas dismissals," because everyone is aware that there is a large number of seasonal trades, both manufacturing and distributing, and that following Christmas in every year since we have had these statistics collected, there has been an increase in the register of unemployed in the fortnight or so after Christmas of anything from 100,000 to 200,000 persons. In spite of that fact, the figures for the north-west area show a decrease, and, taking into account the figures shown on the tape to-night of a diminution in unemployment last week of 74,000, following on the figures of previous weeks, I do not think the north-west district can be so badly placed as the hon. Member suggests. I want to express one cordial agreement with the hon. Gentleman. I hate the cheap references made to the dole. I have always refused to use that word except in inverted commas. It is an offensive word. The great majority of those drawing benefit have paid for that benefit and are as much entitled to it as any person insured in an ordinary insurance company.
The hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. C. Edwards) suggested that the whole country ought to be the Poor Law area. That sounds an attractive phrase, particularly in reference to a district in some difficulties. But does the hon. Gentleman really believe in local administration? Does he really believe in local autonomy? In what conceivable way can you continue local government if the local people are not to have financial responsibility? It is an issue upon which, in connection with London politics, I have often made speeches when discussing the relationship of the London County Council with borough councils. There are people who urge, for instance, that London ought to have a flat rate. A flat rate would mean at once the complete destruction of the borough councils. Equally, if the country is to be responsible for local burdens, does it not mean the destruction of local autonomy?

Mr. WALLHEACI: You have not destroyed it in education.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I would point out to the hon. Member for Merthyr (Mr. Wallhead) that, as far as education is concerned, the country does not assume the whole responsibility. With regard to the general bulk of the expenditure, the country pays a grant which is 50 per cent. of the approved expenditure. The local authority are still free to spend more than the approved expenditure if they wish, and there are certain classes of education which get 75 and some 25 per cent. The whole thing is complicated, and I do not profess to be an expert as regards details. But when you speak of the whole country as one area, you destroy local autonomy. As the areas of the hon. Member for Bedwellty come under the temporary ban of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health, I hope later this evening we may hear more about what has happened in Bedwellty.

Mr. C. EDWARDS: I have told you something that has happened.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I am very glad, but I should like to hear other comments. I would also like to know something about Chester-le-Street. We know something about West Ham, because in the monthly table published in the "Labour Gazette" there are some figures about West Ham. I know a little about West Ham, though not so much as I should like, and I know a little about Bedwellty. I am not in a position to deal with the description of the distressing conditions which prevail in Bedwellty as a result of the alleged autocratic behaviour of that board of guardians, but I am satisfied of this, that in West Ham there has been no distress caused by the action of the Commissioners who have been sent to supersede the board of guardians. It is perfectly evident there has been no hardship; there is no agitation amongst the people of West Ham on the subject. The hon. Member for Bedwellty gave us certain comparisons—[Interruption]. I am sorry I have been led aside by an argument as to the correct pronunciation of the name of the constituency, but as a Welshman I believe I have been correct up to now.
The hon. Member for Bedwellty raised a point as to the rateable value per head of certain areas and the yield of a penny rate. There is no particular point in comparing the yield of a penny rate in
London, or any particular part of London, with some other area, without having full information as to the population and other circumstances; but I would point out that it is notorious that an accommodation of identically the same size will be rated very much higher in Westminster, for example, than in Poplar. No doubt there are excellent reasons for that; but comparisons of rateable value per head, taken by themselves, are not conclusive. The practice in regard to valuation varies very much in different parts of the country, and it was for that reason that in 1925 we passed a Rating and Valuation Act for the purpose of putting rating and valuation on a more satisfactory basis; that being, quite obviously, only the first step in a general scheme of reform of the relationship of local to national taxation.
This is the second debate on this subject we have had this Session. The Liberal Amendment to the Address raised certain questions as to the taxation of land values, but actually the debate became one on necessitous areas. I made certain comments then which I do not want to repeat precisely, but I wish to say a little about them to expand them somewhat. In 1914–15, a year which began before the Great War broke out, £82,000,000 was raised in rates in Great Britain. During the current year, ending 25th March, there will have been raised approximately, £166,000,000, slightly more than double. The Exchequer grant during 1914–15, including Road Fund grants, amounted to £27,400,000, or a sum equal to, roughly, one-third of the amount raised in local rates. During the present year, according to the Estimates presented to Parliament in the last Budget—again including the Road Fund grants—£101,000,000 was provided in the form of grants of one kind or another to local authorities, representing a percentage of 61 per cent. In other words, Parliament is to-day providing four times as much in absolute amount, and practically twice as much in percentage, as in 1914–15. It is very pleasant to be in a position to distribute largesse to one's constituency at the expense of someone else who has the unpleasant responsibility of raising the money, and when I hear these debates I always think there is a feeling, if we can only hand
out enough public money to the recipients of Poor Law relief, and to the recipients of something else, and can force on the Chancellor of the Exchequer the unpleasant obligation of providing that money, then we shall be in a position to secure our seats in Parliament for ever.
I am inclined to believe that some of the necessitous areas have inflicted their unfortunate condition on themselves. I am going to quote certain statistics which I think will he of some interest. The Ministry of Labour divides the country into a certain number of divisions for administration purposes. The London division contains a little over 2,000,000 insured persons. It is not coterminous with the County of London; it includes, broadly speaking, I imagine, Greater London. I mention that because the Poor Law statistics I am going to quote cover the County of London, and there is some measure of error in comparing the two, and I do not want to misrepresent anything. In the London division at the end of January there were 7.4 per cent. of unemployed insured persons, and in the rest of England and Wales there were 12.7 per cent., nearly double. When I come to look at the Poor Law returns—I am getting all my statistics from the same document, the "Ministry of Labour Gazette"—I find that, per 10,000 of the population in London, 528 were in receipt of Poor Law relief on the selected day, the 29th January. If I take the rest of England and Wales, I find the figure was 401. It is really rather remarkable that the Metropolis shows up so badly on Poor Law matters as compared with the rest of England and Wales—the figures these relating to the principal urban areas—and shows us so well so far as unemployment is concerned. Why is it that in relation to the number of persons who are unemployed, there are, broadly speaking, twice as many relieved by the Poor Law guardians in London as are relieved in the rest of England and Wales?
I go a little further. Let us take the North-Eastern district of England, a district which has been more heavily afflicted by unemployment than any other part. In the eight principle urban districts in that area the proportion per 10,000 in receipt of poor relief at the end of January was 456, as compared with 528 in London, but if you come to
look at the unemployment statistics the North-Eastern area shows 16.8 per cent. of unemployed and the London division only 7.4. Why is it that London shows up so badly? I think it is perfectly evident if one examines London's figures in detail. They are: West district, 216 per 10,000; North district, 332; Central district, 408; East district, 1,251; South district, 532. In other words, one in eight of the population of the Eastern district of the Metropolis were in receipt of Poor Law relief. That figure is not justified by the unemployment which prevails in that area. The unemployment in that area is substantially less than in the district represented by the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. T. Thomson).

Miss LAWRENCE: Would the hon. Member give us the unemployment figures for the East area separately? I rather think he is lumping in Mayfair and Westminster in respect of unemployment and giving the relief in Poplar and Stepney separately.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I am perfectly aware that the figures I am giving of unemployment relate to the whole area, and I was careful at the beginning to point out that the London division for Employment Exchange purposes was not co-terminous with the County of London, but I must use the statistics at my disposal.

Miss LAWRENCE: I think the hon. Member has misunderstood me. I say he is lumping together for unemployment purposes Westminster, Mayfair and the rest of the Western districts and for Poor Law statistics he is giving them separately.

Mr. WILLIAMS: May I again point out to the hon. Lady that at the beginning I remarked on the limitation of my statistics because they do not split up London districts into these details. I did compare, first of all, the whole of London with the whole of the rest of England and Wales, which was a reasonable and fair comparison. I also compared the whole of London with the north-eastern district, and no one is going to suggest to me that unemployment has prevailed in any part of London at all comparable to that in certain parts of South Wales and the north-east coast. It is perfectly obvious that is the case. No one is going to suggest that the unemployment in the
eastern districts of the metropolis is materially worse than in the West Ham Union. Nobody is going to suggest that unemployment is profoundly worse in Stepney, Shoreditch and Bethnal Green than in the area of the West Ham Union, yet in the area of the West Ham Union, the number of persons per 10,000 on the same date was 639 as compared with 1,251 in the eastern districts of London. The 639 is 307 less than it was a year ago because there is now operating in West Ham Union a board of guardians which is prepared to do its duty, and is not in the position of spending public money for the purpose of gaining popularity for itself. I would have supplied the precise comparative figures if they had been available. I took the nearest and fairest comparison I could. I made qualifications so that it should not be said I was indulging in misrepresentation. I hope possibly as a result of this Debate, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health in conjunction with the Ministry of Labour may be able to compile some statement showing the relationship of Poor Law relief to unemployment in various areas so that we may find out their precise position. There are many things in the Motion with which I agree. I agree absolutely that local rates are a burden on industry and an element in the cost of production. That point was made in the Debate a fortnight last Friday on the Liberal Amendment to the Address. I am not prepared to see public money handed over without check to local authorities. Why is it that the Poplar Board of Guardians are in a position to relieve that abnormal proportion of persons? There is no justification for it. Conditions in a large area in South London are more difficult than in the East End. There is a popular idea that since the days of Jack the Ripper there is something terrible about the East of London. East London compares favourably with provincial cities. It is not the district of horror we are asked to believe. I know most parts of it very well. Abnormal expenditure in the East End is largely the result of the operation of the Metropolitan Common Poor Fund under an Act of Parliament passed in 1921. If I remember the provisions of that Act correctly, Poplar is in a position to draw without limit on the rest of the Metropolis.

Miss LAWRENCE: No.

Mr. WILLIAMS: In this respect, so far as the number of persons relieved are concerned. There is a fixed grant in relation to each person's relief. They can draw, and have drawn, immense sums into Poplar from the rest of London. It is popular. Tradesmen and all classes of the community have enjoyed a sort of prosperity at the expense of other boroughs in London suffering difficulties just as profound as Poplar, because it has been possible, under the system of the Act of 1921, by the operation of the Common Poor Fund to demoralise and debauch the people of Poplar. I use the word "debauch," not in the sense of drunkenness but in the sense of responsibility towards public funds.

Miss LAWRENCE: Is the word "debauch" parliamentary?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain FitzRoy): In the way in which it was used I see nothing unparliamentary in it.

Mr. WILLIAMS: My hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Mitchell Banks) tells me it means, "To corrupt with profligate expenditure." I was using exactly the word I meant to use. On the other hand I believe that the relationship of national to local finance is unsatisfactory. I am glad the Minister of Education has come in. He administers a great variety of grants to local authorities, depending on a variety of percentages and those grants are in respect of proved expenditure. There is exchanged between the Department of the Minister of Education and local education authorities up and down the country, a volume of correspondence which represent an immense public burden. The Minister of Health administers grants like the tuberculosis grants, the grants for maternity homes, grants for venereal disease, grants to the Poor Law, and all those things have their own special formula to involve endless correspondence between headquarters in London and the municipalities. When we were discussing this matter on the 13th May last, when the bulk of us were preoccupied with other matters and when it was my privilege to say a few words in reply to the hon. Member for Poplar, I expressed the hope that some day we would discover a formula expressing the relationship of national to local taxation.
That formula ought to take into account the population of each local area. Also it should take into account whether the area is rich or poor. There should therefore be an element in the grant which would be in inverse proportion to the rateable value per head. It might also take into account the percentage of unemployment prevailing in any area during a particular year, but I think that if we could find cut a formula which would satisfactorily represent the grants from the National Exchequer to the local authorities and eliminate all the arguments between Ministries in London and local authorities, we would reduce costs and do something to remove the necessity for having Debates on this subject. I move the Amendment standing in my name, and express regret that I have taken so long a time.

Mr. REMER: I beg to second the Amendment, which has been moved in such able fashion by my hon. Friend the Member for Reading (Mr. H. Williams). The valuable information he has given to the House will be of much value to those of us who have met with abuse and misrepresentation from hon. Members opposite. The Resolution and the Amendment correctly disclose a fundamental difference between hon. Members opposite and members who sit on these Benches. We of the Conservative party have been brought up on principles which are not new principles. They are old principles. They were given to us by a very great Statesman, Benjamin Disraeli, and speaking for myself, the whole basis of my political faith is founded on what that great Statesman gave to the Conservative party. I am going to remind hon. Members opposite, in case they do not know, that the principles of Benjamin Disraeli were the principles of self-help. That famous Statesman said in a classic phrase, which I believe gives the whole basis of the policy of the Conservative party:
I will help those who make efforts to help themselves.
During the last half century the Conserative party has been built up on a policy of social progress which has been a great advantage to the working classes of this country. The Socialist policy is in direct opposition to those principles, because they say, "We will help those
who are making no effort whatever to help themselves. We will help the idle; we will help the lazy, and the indolent." I would go further and say that the Socialists encourage the people of this country to be idle, lazy, and indolent.
There is one thing in our national life which I deplore, and that is the tendency of modern politics. We see this frequently in what is brought forward from the benches opposite. The speeches we have heard from hon. Members opposite to-night are completely demoralising to the whole of our race. Hon Members opposite are engaged in the kind of auction for the votes of the people. In the 1923 Election they promised everything to everyone, and when the Labour party came into office in 1924 and formed a Government, they found that none of those promises were capable of fulfilment. In the Resolution which has been moved to-night there is a promise to the necessitous areas of untold gold being poured out, and the Treasury chest is to come to the aid of all these necessitous areas. We on these benches are content to give some consideration to the real necessities of the so-called necessitous areas, and we are as anxious as anyone else to alleviate real suffering. We intend to give all the assistance which has been given in the past in this respect, and which we think is reasonable, I would remind hon. Members that many millions have been given and many millions have been lent to these necessitous areas, but there must he some limit to the amount which can be provided for this purpose by the taxpayer.
We cannot agree that the scandals which have taken place in West Ham and other places shall be repeated in other directions. We cannot agree that payment should be made to men in idleness in excess of what they would receive when in full employment. The hon. Member for Gorton referred to people being taken off the dole and put, on the pour rate. If a man has been found to be ineligible for the dole, or if he has been found to be an undesirable person, is it not obvious that a local authority should take a long time before that man is placed on the poor rate and allowed to receive relief? May I say to the Parliamentary Secretary that in my opinion
the greatest need of our country to-day is some form of liaison between the Poor Law and unemployment insurance. I would remind the House that these necessitous areas are almost entirely situated in those parts of the country which in previous days were used as munition areas. I refer to such places as the Clyde, and the North-East Coast, and Sheffield, and the distress has almost, entirely been caused by the policy of the cutting down of armaments and munitions of war.

Major CRAWFURD: Does the hon. Member suggest that the conditions which he is now outlining do not apply to the East End of London?

Mr. REMER: I do not say that the whole of the necessitous areas are confined to the East End of London.

Major CRAWFURD: Does he hon. Member not realise that the conditions which apply to Barrow, Sheffield and other places also apply to the East End of London?

Mr. REMER: I was pointing out that side by side with the distress which is taking place in the munition areas, we find the same distress amongst the shareholders and capitalists who have invested their money in such firms as Vickers. Limited, and Armstrong Whitworth and Company, and invariably in such districts we find terrible suffering amongst the working classes. This is another instance of my argument that the interests of capital and labour are identical. I would remind the House that the dividends, profits, and interest accruing to capital provide the vast bulk of the revenue of this country, and if we are to encourage capitalists to be enterprising and progressive, then there must be a reduction of the taxation of this country, and we must give some consideration to the vital needs of the taxpayers.
It is very easy for hon. Members opposite to promise help for these necessitous areas, and for anybody else who comes along, but it is much more difficult to pay for the expenditure which they are advocating. We of the Conservative party have, in the past, helped the necessitous areas very largely. We have always helped those who are deserving of help, but local authorities must learn to he economical, and far too many of
them are trying to secure votes by means of money which the Government provide. It is very easy to be generous at the expense of someone else, or as a famous comedian once said, there are a great many people in this country who are generous when it does not cost them anything. Hon. Gentlemen opposite are always promising this and that, but they do not consider the means by which they are to find the money in order to pay for the expenditure which they are advocating. I commend this Amendment to the House. We of the Conservative party desire to help all those who are genuinely suffering, but we must remember the overburdened taxpayer, and we must take care not to demoralise our race by making payments to those who are not deserving of support from the Government.

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: The hon. Member for Reading (Mr. H. Williams) referred complacently to the reduction which has taken place in the number of unemployed, but, even with that reduction, the average number still remains at 12 per cent., and, as has been already pointed out, that is an average number, so that you have in some districts a very much smaller number, and in others a very much larger number. You have the tragic position of the North-East Coast, where there are, not 12 per cent., but 17 per cent. unemployed. That, again, is an average figure. If you take certain industries, such as shipbuilding, you find that the unemployment is 49.1 per cent. at the present moment in the shipbuilding trade, and in marine engineering 34.2 per cent. In face of these figures, the ordinary means for dealing with unemployment break down. To take the case of my own town, in Middlesbrough, where there are 38,000 insured male workers at the present time, over 6,660 are unemployed; that is to say, 18 per cent. of the total insured population are out of work. Owing to the tightening up of the administration of the Unemployment Insurance Act, many of these have been turned on to the board of guardians, and the result is an appalling state of things. Whereas the average out-relief in Middlesbrough in 1914 was £326 per week, to-day it is £3,604, an increase of
more than ten-fold; while the Poor Rate, which was 1s. 2d. in 1914, is now 6s. 10d., and the total rates have advanced from 8s. to nearly 20s. in the £. Similar results can be given for other towns in the same neighbourhood Why should these industrial areas bear rates of 20s. and 30s. in the £, while residential areas get off with 7s. or 8s?. You have Bournemouth, where the rates are 8s. 2d.; in Blackpool they are 7s. 6d.; in Southport 8s. 4d., and in Oxford 7s. 8d. It is not the fault of the industrial areas that their rates are 20s. or 30s. in the £, nor is it the fault of the employers or of the employed; it is entirely an aftermath of the War. It is due to a national cause, and should be borne by national grants.
This claim to equalisation is no new one. As far back as 1901, the Royal Commission on Local Taxation reported that certain services should he regarded as national. Those were poor relief, asylums, police, main roads and education. They recommended that an increased contribution from the Exchequer should be given, and that the amount paid would be better based on taxes than on rating. The Departmental Committee on Local Taxation, in March, 1914, recommended that a considerable increase in the amount of State subvention to local authorities was justifiable and necessary, and they advocated larger grants for these semi-national services. It is worthy of note that the terms of reference to that Committee were that they should
make recommendations with a view to legislation at an early date.
That was in 1914, and we are still waiting for legislation to give effect to the recommendations of that Departmental Committee. No new principle is involved in this claim for relief to necessitous areas. Already education grants are given to necessitous areas; where the number of children is larger in proportion, and the rates are higher, correspondingly higher grants are given. In other directions the same principle is recognised, as in the case of the Metropolitan Common Poor Fund and the Local Authorities Financial Assistance Act, whereby wealthy Westminster and St. George's help poverty-stricken Shoreditch and Whitechapel. In the same way, why should not wealthy
residential areas in different parts of the country help to bear the industrial burdens of these necessitous areas?
Apart from the injustice of this rating, these heavy rates are a very severe tax on industry, and they retard that recovery of industry which is the only cure for unemployment. Rates, unlike taxes, are a first charge on production Taxes are levied on profits made or income received, whereas rates are levied irrespectively of whether there is any profit or income. An illustration from my own district will show how the tremendous increase in local rates is a burden on industry. In the case of a shipyard on the Tees, in 1914 the total rates were £400, equivalent to 7d. per ton launched. Last year, in 1926, the total rates were £3,027, equivalent to 4s. 5d. per ton launched, the tonnage launched in both years being practically the same. There you have an increase of nearly eight-fold, and it is a very serious handicap in meeting foreign competition. The Committee on Trade and Industry, which recently reported, give some interesting figures bearing on this question. They point out that in Sheffield the local rates per ton of steel m 1914 amounted to 3s., whereas in 1924 they amounted to 21s. So far, the Government have done nothing to assist us in regard to necessitous areas. In fact, instead of having assistance, we have had the reverse. The Government have sought to shift the responsibility of the burden from the State to the local authorities. They have raided the Road Find, and the local authorities are receiving £7,000,000 less than they otherwise would. Education grants have been cut down by Circular No. 1371 and Memorandum No. 44, and grants from the Unemployment Fund were seriously reduced last year, while harsher administration of the Unemployment Insurance Act has transferred the burden to the Poor Rate.
I want to appeal to the Government to-night particularly with regard to Unemployment Grants. Unemployment is increasing, and yet the grants are reduced. Unemployment Grants have been reduced very considerably during the, last year. In January of last year, 33,000 men were employed on schemes assisted by Unemployment Grants, but in January of this year the number has fallen to 14,000.
On schemes assisted out of the Road Fund the number employed a year ago was 18,508, while to-day it is 14,121. That shows a very serious reduction in the number of men employed on useful productive work. We contend that there should be new schemes of work, and not reduced grants. Reference has already been made to the amount spent since the Armistice on out-of-work donation, unemployment benefit, and Poor Law relief. Something like £380,000,000 has been paid away without any services rendered whatever. Surely, it would be infinitely better to spend that sum of money in doing useful work of a productive kind, which would give valuable assets to the nation. Are we prepared to go on as we have done, spending £75,000,000 per year with no services rendered whatever? If the Government have not the vision and foresight to deal with the matter themselves, surely they might allow the local authorities to carry out schemes which they are prepared to carry out, but which have been turned down and refused by the Government. The Government have assisted local authorities to the extent of one-third of the total cost, but that is not enough. When rates are 20s. and 30s. in the £, the local authorities cannot go on.
In my own town of Middlesbrough we have spent over £1,000,000 in work of a useful nature and a productive character, but as our rates are 20s. in the £ we cannot go on spending money in that way. Yet people have to be kept, and if you do not pay them from the Unemployment Grants Committee you have to pay them from the guardians. I appeal to the Government not to leave the distressed areas to carry on alone. They have made a great fight, but they have got to the end of their resources. At any rate the Government might do for local authorities in England what they are doing in Scotland. Surely the grants should be given on exactly the same terms and conditions Similar services and similar payments ought to be made, and yet so far they have refused it. It cannot be that unemployment is not as bad in England as in Scotland. It is worse. Last December, when the grant was made, the figure for engineering in Scotland was 22.6, for the North-East Coast 23.3, and in Wales 26.7. For shipbuilding the figure in Scotland was 51.6, and for the North-East
Coast 59.7. There we have worse unemployment and more poor relief, and yet we get no assistance. Not only are we refused assistance but we are called upon to contribute in taxes for the relief of necessitous areas. You have steel works on the Tees competing with steel works on the Clyde. The steel works on the Clyde get relief from the rates. They get their share of the money that the Government are paying. Our works on the Tees get no relief to the rates and they have to pay taxes to help the necessitous areas in Scotland. Surely that is a monstrous injustice. I cannot understand how the Minister of Health can possibly have allowed the Secretary for Scotland to steal a march on him in that way.

10.0 p.m.

Sir K. WOOD: We have during the last 12 months had many discussions on this question of necessitous areas. I think most hon. Members who have heard this Debate will agree that the Mover and Seconder of the Motion and the other speakers have certainly provided very interesting new material. My hon. Friend the Member for Reading (Mr. H. Williams) certainly made a very valuable contribution to this subject from his point of view. I am sure the whole House has been glad once again to hear the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. T. Thomson) on this matter. None of us feel that a Debate on necessitous areas would be complete unless he made his contribution. He rightly once again referred to the fact that undoubtedly heavy local rates bear, unfortunately, a a very important part in hampering industrial revival, and I think everyone, wherever he sits, would desire to find some complete and scientific means of adjusting the present position. But I want to cheer the hon. Member up a little, if I can. It must not be inferred that the rates in England and Wales, for instance, have increased continuously during recent years. In 1921–22 the amount of local rates collected in this country was about £170,000,000, which was an average amount per head of the population of £4 10s. 2d. If you take the year 1924–25, which is a vital year, the amount of local rates was £142,000,000, which gives an average amount per head of the population of £3 13s. 11d. In 1925–26 the figure
went up slightly and the average per head of the population was £3 16s. 5d. So compared with the year 1921–22 there has been a reduction per head of the population of 13s. 9d.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: But in that period the weekly wage earners had lost. £400,000,000 a year in wages.

Sir K. WOOD: That is another matter. I do not want to enter into controversy with the hon. Member, but it does not destroy in any way the very considerable reduction which has undoubtedly been made and which ought to be stated in the course of a Debate of this kind. I wish could continue that story up to the present time, but obviously I cannot, because of the general strike and the coal stoppage which have undoubtedly caused a very considerable increase in rates during the current financial year.
Another point I want to deal with is the complaint—and one can well understand it—that the National Exchequer has dealt very hardly so far as the relationship between the National Exchequer and the local exchequer is concerned. Again, if one looks at the figures from the official statistics, that certainly is not-borne out. I have before mc a statement showing the percentage of the rate and tax-borne expenditure of the local authorities comparing the year 1917–18 with the Year 1923–24, and I find that so far as rates are concerned, their contribution to elementary and higher education in 1917 was 49.9 per cent. and the contribution from taxes was 50.1 per cent., while in 1923–24 the percentage from rates was reduced to 43.7 and the tax contribution has gone up to 56.3. So you could pursue that comparison in connection with highways, with the police and with the health services. To the health services for the year 1917–18 the rates made a contribution of 91.1 per cent, and taxes only 8.9 per cent. In 1923–24 the rate contribution was 71.6 per cent. while the tax contribution has gone up to 28.4 per cent. Therefore, without any attempt to-unduly minimise the position, it is only fair to say that a very considerable alteration has been made in both those very important matters.
I only want to make one further observation on the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Middlesbrough. He mentioned, as I expected.
he would do to-night, the question of the grant for Poor Law expenditure in Scotland. I need hardly say that that grant is certainly in no way connected with a necessitous areas grant. I think the hon. Member appreciates that. Had it been in any way an attempt to deal with the question of necessitous areas, it would certainly have been a most highly unsatisfactory method to adopt. The grant was simply made as a recognition of the action which the Scottish Office took in advising parish councils to make certain payments, some of which the Court subsequently determined to be illegal. A good deal has been said to-night, and quite properly, in regard to the position of certain of the so-called necessitous areas. But the House should remember that there has been a considerable improvement so far as the position of many necessitous areas are concerned during the last two months. I find, for instance, that in November, 1926, there were 106 boards of guardians which were in possession of authority to borrow various amounts for various periods. It was necessary for them to do so. On 31st January, so great was the improvement, that that number had been reduced to 98 and, of the 98, 21, having made adequate calls in October, will not require any further borrowing powers after 31st March next. With regard to 38 more of those authorities, they have already agreed terms of repayment with my Department which are certainly not regarded by them as involving very considerable hardship. Notwithstanding the arrangements necessary for the repayment of debt and the fall of assessable value in the coal mining areas which has resulted from the strike, a number of unions will, I am glad to say, be in a position 1;o reduce their rates during the coming half year, as they will require to budget only for normal expenditure. I think that every hon. Member, to whatever party he belongs, will agree that that is certainly not an unsatisfactory position, and that it is one which everyone, without in any way minimising the necessity of dealing with the situation, is glad to see.
Now I come to a part of the Amendment which has been emphasised by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Reading and by the hon. Member who seconded the Amendment, in which reference is
made to the fact that in any arrangements made in connection with endeavours to solve the problem of the necessitous areas we should see that local authorities were responsible for the result of any extravagant expenditure incurred by them. I think that, without, examining or referring to any particular case, most hon. Members will agree with that suggestion as a general proposition, It is a fact, and I think that most hon. Members will agree also with this, that, in the cases of a number of unions, the policy of the guardians, unfortunately, whatever their intention may have been, has been instrumental, in a good many areas at least, in destroying the incentive to work and in bringing on relief large numbers who found it more profitable to receive relief than to work. Three eases have been cited to the House to-night which are pretty well known. They arc the cases of West Ham, of Bedwellty, and of Chester-le-Street. I do not propose to say anything further tonight on the case of West Ham, because the facts are pretty well known. So far as the case of Bedwellty is concerned, the hon. Member who seconded this Motion (Mr. C. Edwards) knows very well that the situation in that particular part of the country is a most unfortunate and unhappy one. From the point or view of the Ministry of Health, from January, 1926, to November, 1926, no less than 14 advances were made under what is called the Goschen Committee, which brought up the total amount of indebtdeness of that particular area to no less a sum than £979,000. So far as the administration of Poor Law relief in that area is concerned, out-relief was certainly given without any regard to the resultant cost, and during the coal dispute relief was granted on a large scale to men who, in fact, were legally debarred from relief by reason of the Merthyr Tydvil judgment. There are very many other instances of waste and extravagance which I think the hon. Member knows full well. There are many evidences of them. So far as that particular area is concerned, since the appointment of the new guardians—they have only held office for a very short period indeed— substantial economies have already been effected without any undue hardship or unfairness to any person involved.
I would like to say a little more about Chester-le-Street, because the report on Chester-le-Street of the newly-appointed guardians will be available to Members of this House in a very few days. We have just received the report which covers the period from 30th August, 1926, to 31st December, 1926, and if certainly reveals a very remarkable state of affairs. The old board or guardians of Chesterle-Street consisted of some 59 members. Of these, 39 were either miners or miners' officials or miners' wives. When the new guardians took over the administration, there were no less than 37,643 persons in receipt of out-relief and they Were receiving each week £8,986 in kind and £809 in money, making a total of £9,796 per week. I think it may be said without exaggeration that practically the whole of the mining population was in receipt of relief during the months of July and August. That number has been reduced since the new guardians have been appointed to 29,136, on December 4th, and the sum which is payable in relief is approximately £4,870, a saving of £4,926 per week.

Mr. LAWSON: That was after the coal stoppage?

Sir K. WOOD: The hon. Member can give that as one of the reasons for the reduction, but I am afraid that is not the only explanation that can be given.

Mr. LAWSON: People are starving.

Sir K. WOOD: The hon. Members will find that in this Report the proceedings of the guardians themselves were certainly of a very remarkable character. In the first place, so far as their methods of granting relief were concerned, they appointed an emergency committee to deal with the whole question, upon which they at first appointed five members; but on the following day they resolved to appoint the whole of the remainder of the Labour members as the official members of the emergency committee to grant relief. The result, of course, by the addition of those members was that the independent members had practically no possibility of intervening in the matter at all. They came to the conclusion that they would not ask the people who applied for Poor Law relief to produce their co-operative pass books, in order to see exactly what their position was. The guardians themselves, I
understand, arranged that on the occasion and at the time when people received Poor Law relief a collection should be taken up for the Poor Law guardians themselves.
Another very remarkable fact that has come to light is that, I think about the middle of the period, they resolved that any applicant for relief who was what was called "unfinancial" in their union, which I understand means in arrears as far as their union Is concerned, was not to be granted relief according to scale, but the relieving officers were to relieve him according to the state of his destitution. That is certainly a very remarkable state of affairs. I understand that following that particular resolution of the guardians, actually the, Poor Law officers had to go round to find out what was the position of these people.

Mr. LAWSON: Is this Report merely a report by the guardians themselves or is it a report by the persons who are charging these things? Has the hon. Member any report about the recent incident when the guardians got messed up in their accounts and the Ministry of Labour had to go in to put them right?

Sir K. WOOD: No, Sir.

Mr. LAWSON: It was a very serious incident.

Sir K. WOOD: All the matters which I have quoted are quotations from the official minute books of the old board of guardians.

Mr. LAWSON: The hon. Member has made statements of opinions expressed by guardians which have nothing to do with the minute books.

Sir K. WOOD: I do not think the hon. Member can have understood me. The quotations which I have made to-night in connection with the position of men in relation to their unions, and matters of that kind—

Mr. LAWSON: Are purely ex-parte.

Sir K. WOOD: Will the hon. Member allow me to finish my sentence? They are quotations from the minute books of the old hoard of guardians.

Mr. LAWSON: It is all very comforting to hon. Members opposite. It would be all right if you were starving like some of the people in the area. What about the women and children who are getting nothing?

Sir K. WOOD: With respect to the reference in the Amendment which says that the local authorities should be responsible for the results of the extravagant expenditure incurred by them, I should like to direct the attention of the House to the exact terms of the Motion and the Amendment because very little has been said about them this evening. It will be observed that the suggestion in the Motion is that it is in the national interest that the community as a whole should accept some responsibility for exceptional local burdens That has been discussed again and again in this House, and the difficulty has always been, as the right hon. Gentleman opposite who is to follow me knows, to get a fair formula in relation to this particular matter. I need only read to the House a statement, which was made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health in the Labour Government which puts the matter concisely and really disposes of the terms of the Motion. He said:
The case for necessitous areas has been put very strongly by Members on both sides. There is no Member in the House who does not feel very considerable sympathy with those particular black spots which, during the long trade depression, have suffered very acutely. It is true that many of us on this side of the House"—
That is on the Labour side of the House—
believe in some special treatment for necessitous areas. It is an open secret that there has not been a Minister of Health since the War who was not favourably disposed towards some special treatment of That kind, and who, having examined the problem, has not come to the conclusion that the practical difficulties in the way of any formula are almost insuperable. The right hon. Member for Central Sheffield (Mr. Hope) admitted the difficulties of discrimination, and urged that it should be possible for the Government to agree upon a formula which, without laying local authorities open to the temptation of extravagance, would bring relief to areas which were really necessitous. It is not because this Government"—
That is, the Labour Government—
and previous Governments have not tried that this question has not been solved by a formula. I am convinced that it is quite impossible to devise a formula which would be in the best interests of the areas. I have seen more than one formula which, when worked out and applied to a particular place, yielded the most fantastic results in the way of special public assistance. It would seem, therefore, that that
is not the way to deal with the problem"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th August, I924; col. 2601, Vol. 176.]
There is another way of dealing with this problem. It is referred to in the terms of the Amendment which has been moved by the hon. Member for Reading. In the later part of the Amendment the hon. Member refers to the necessity of reviewing all the relations of national and local taxation with a view to assistance being given to the more heavily burdened areas. It is on those lines that the Minister of Health proposes to proceed and it should I think specially commend itself to the right hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Webb), because the Government having passed its Eating and Valuation Bill, propose to proceed to put before the House proposals in regard to Poor Law reform, and they feel that a review, if it is possible, should be taken of the relations of national and local taxation. I would remind the right hon. Gentleman, because I hope he will vote for the Amendment, that on the 27th May, 1925, he moved a resolution in this House, which was carried without a division, and after referring to the overlapping of services said that:
As a necessary preliminary to the much-needed revision of the grants-in-aid in relief of the burdens now pressing so heavily on local authorities and on industry, it is essential that"—certain proposals in relation to Poor Law reform should he carried.
He says it is the necessary preliminary to any relief being given to necessitous areas.

Mr. WEBB: No, no!

Sir K. WOOD: The right hon. Gentleman says that very quickly. I will read to him the statement that he made on that occasion. I will not read the whole speech. If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that I am not giving a fair quotation, I will hand him the volume and he can read it all. This is what he said:
Any relief to the local ratepayer, any reform in the system of local taxation has been prevented for a quarter of a century, partly, of course, by that inertia which inevitably comes over Governments when they have any difficult problem to tackle, but also because it has been absolutely beyond the power of any Government to deal adequately with local finance while you have this overlapping, this continuance of separate authorities all dealing with the same set of people and each clamouring for Government grants.
That is grants such as we have demanded to-night. Then the right hon. Gentleman goes on:
You could not do it. Consequently you will not get any relief for the overburdened districts. I have told them this over and over again"—
That was his own party—
until you can manage to bring about unity and system in local government"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th May, 1925; col. 1497, Vol. 184.]
In other words it is not by a proposal such as that of the Mover of this Motion, by giving a little assistance here and there from the National Exchequer to local authorities.

Mr. WEBB: Read farther on.

Sir K. WOOD: The Motion says:
The community as a whole should accept some responsibility for these exceptional local burdens.
That is not the solution of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Seaham (Mr. Webb). He said that he had told his party again and again that that is not the direction in which they must look, but that they must look to a new system, so far as local government is concerned. It is on those lines that my hon. Friend the Member for Reading has framed his Amendment, and I hope that one of the first persons to follow us into the Lobby in support of the Amendment will be the right hon. Member for Seaham himself. The right hon. Gentleman has a scientific mind. He has given great study to this problem, and he knows full well that in the first place, as was stated again and again by the Labour Government when they were in office, it is impossible to find a reasonable formula for any contribution from the National Exchequer; and, secondly, as he himself stated only a short time ago and as he put it very plainly indeed, the only real way of tackling this matter is to bring about some unity and a new system, so far as local government is concerned. That is the policy of the present Government. We have already taken more practical steps than any Government has taken in that direction. We have circulated our proposals for Poor Law reform. We have had the statement of the Prime Minister so far as the intentions in the new Session are concerned. In these circumstances I confidently invite not only the House but the right hon. Member for Seaham
to support the Amendment, feeling, as I do, that the best assistance to the necessitous areas of the country can be given on the lines indicated in the Amendment.

Mr. WEBB: Whenever we deal with the problem of necessitous areas I am afraid the House is always bandied to and fro between one kind of necessitous area and another. Anyone who listened to the Debate to-night would have thought that the necessitous areas complained of were the areas of the town councils in relation to the work undertaken at Middlesbrough and elsewhere by the town councils in the relief of unemployment. That is one kind of necessitous area. The hon. Member who has just spoken on behalf of the Government switched the Debate to what I should have thought was a more natural field, namely, the boards of guardians and their necessities, which are registered not only in very high poor rates but still more seriously in enormous overdrafts and loans which the hon. Member's Department has sanctioned. I will return to that point later. It is true that I have repeatedly said in this House and outside that we want a complete revision of our local government and a complete review of our local government finance, and I have also always held that you could not get any proper solution of the, problem of local finance without that complete review and reorganisation. But I do not think I have ever said that the necessitous areas with exceptional burdens could not get relief in the meantime. As a matter of fact they have had relief in the meantime to an insufficient extent. Therefore, if the hon. Member tries to make out that because I said you could not have a complete solution of the problem of local finance without complete reorganisation, it is inconsistent to ask for relief in exceptional circumstances for necessitous areas, pending such complete review and reorganisation, I suggest that he is really taking an unfair dialectical position. He knows perfectly well that it has been quite possible to give exceptional relief to necessitous areas in exceptional circumstances. It has been done year after year to a comparatively small extent, and it is obviously not impossible.
I ask the House to notice the date of this quotation. The quotation with which
he sought to condemn me was from a speech in 1924. I was then saying that we wanted a more complete solution, and it was then already about a quarter of a century overdue. Now we are in 1927 and we are still asked to wait for this future review and general reorganisation which is to bring relief to the ratepayers in the necessitous areas. Therefore, I take the hon. Member as meaning that, when we do get this vaunted Measure of Poor Law reorganisation, which is to give unity of administration and help to make possible the solution of the problem of local finance, as it is to relieve ratepayers in the necessitous areas, it will be accompanied by a very substantial additional grant-in-aid from the Exchequer. It is quite clear that no amount of reorganisation and review—and "review" is a beautiful word—of the relations of local finance and central finance, will bring any relief to any ratepayer unless accompanied by a large increase in the grant-in-aid. I call the House to witness that the hon. Member speaking for the Government has, in effect, premised this large increase in the grant-in-aid which is going to accompany the Measure of Poor Law reform which is to give this unity and which his right hon. Friend has already proposed to I he country.
First, on the question of delay. We were promised this Measure last year. We were to have had it this year; we are now not to have it this Session and we are promised it for next Session, but next Session, its the hon. Member knows very well, is one coming near to the critical period in the life of a Government. Does anyone really imagine that at such a period hon. Members opposite are going to fight through such a contentious and difficult Measure, objected to by more than half of their own party? Does anyone suppose that that is going to be carried through in the last Session before the dissolution of Parliament? Really, the ratepayers of Middlesbrough must have great credulity if they are to be told that they are going to get relief in that necessitous area because there is going to be a Measure of Poor Law reform which is going to abolish the guardians and throw the expense, outside the county boroughs, on the county council. Middlesbrough, being a county borough, will receive no prospect of get-
ting a single penny out of Poor Law reform, nor will Gateshead, nor Newcastle, nor Sheffield, nor any other of the county boroughs, which are, on the whole, the necessitous areas. There is not a glimmer of a sixpence for them in a Measure of Poor Law reform unless the Government are prepared to give them large increased grants-in-aid, which is the only way, it is clear, in which the rates of the ratepayers can be reduced. I agree with the hon. Member that that is the right line for the Government to take, to pass this Measure of Poor Law reform, and I hope they are going to take it. While I could find some opportunity for criticising in detail, I am afraid, many of the points of the Measure of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, yet in spirit, in general, I am hound to say that I hope it will pass, with such Amendments. I only say I hope it will pass, but if I were to be asked on my honour whether believe it will be passed, that would be quite another matter.
To come back to the particular point of to-night's debate, the very hard necessities of these exceptionally burdened necessitous areas, I am not going to say a word now with regard to the trouble of the town councils. The town councils in the large county boroughs have done their very utmost, with a certain amount of Government assistance, to find work for the unemployed, and they have incurred a very heavy indebtedness for that purpose, but, on the other hand, you have the boards of guardians, who have had thrown on their hands—I cannot help saying, because of the stringent administration and the more stringent law of the unemployment insurance fund—a very considerable number in the aggregate of those persons who would otherwise have got unemployment, benefit, but who, on being struck off have had to go to the guardians. An hon. Member told us that the rates had been falling since 1920–21, but he would not say that about the poor rate. The poor rate has gone up enormously since that time, and I consider the position of the Poor Law at this moment, the administration and the finance, is very comparable to the situation in 1834, on another plane, but really quite as serious, and that reform is quite as urgent, but at the moment I want only to deal with indebtedness.
I have not the exact figures, but I suppose the indebtedness of the boards of guardians at this moment must be somewhere between £16,000,000 and £20,000,000. I mean their indebtedness on current account, not for capital expenditure, but their overdrafts and loans which they have incurred owing to not being able to get enough revenue actually to pay the outdoor relief and other actual costs. They have incurred an indebtedness on what ought to be their revenue account quite irrespective of capital charges, of somewhere between £16,000,000 and £18,000,000. That is a very grave state of things, and I want to point out that if the guardians may be criticised for that, they have had the sanction of the Minister of Health. They have not been able to get any one of these loans, or to incur any one of these overdrafts, except with the express sanction of the Minister of Health. As a matter of fact, the Minister—I do not grumble at all—has come to their assistance by giving them a grant in many cases out of the public funds, and not compelling them to go to the bankers, or in other ways to get a loan, and there has been this relatively enormous debt incurred in a hundred cases or so merely on current account.
That is quite contrary to the principles of accounting. It is quite contrary to all the law and requirements with regard to local rating, because it means that the expenditure of the ratepayers of this year is being thrown on the ratepayers of next year, and the year after, and the year after that, when they have no responsibility for it. What are the Government going to do about that? My complaint to-night is not that the Government have prevented these boards of guardians from borrowing, but my complaint is, what are the Government going to do in this terrible financial situation into which these boards of guardians, with the express sanction of the Government, have been landed? It is easy to say that the guardians, having incurred this indebtedness, must raise their rates locally to a sufficient height to enable them to pay it off with interest. As a matter of fact, I understand the Minister of Health has allowed the new guardians whom he has put in at West Ham as salaried officials to defer repayment. I do not grumble at
that, but if he can do that with the West Ham Guardians, ought he not to do it with other boards of guardians? It is very easy to show a reduction in the poor rate of West Ham under the administration of these new guardians, when these new guardians have been granted the exceptional favour that they are not required to pay the overdraft for the indebtedness the guardians have incurred, and are not required even to pay interest on it. Can the hon. Gentleman explain why he has granted that particular favour, and is the policy of the Government with regard to this £16,000,000 of loan going to be, as has been shown in West Ham, to allow the payment to be deferred and the interest to be excused?
There has been another policy. A grant of 40 per cent has been made for all the exceptional expenditure owing to the relief of miners' dependants. The hon. Gentleman said that that had nothing to do with necessitous areas. No, but it so happens that those places where there has been this large amount of unemployment owing to the coal stoppage, and so on, coincide with the necessitous areas to a large extent. The Scottish Board of Health issued a Circular recommending the parish councils strongly to grant Poor Law relief to the wives and children of miners who lost their employment in the dispute. The English Ministry of Health issued a Circular in almost identical terms practically recommending the grant of outdoor relief to an extent which I never remember a Minister of Health recommending before. He went to the limit of what is permitted in positively recommending boards of guardians to grant outdoor relief.
What would have I been thought 20 or 30 years ago of the President of the Local Government. Board of that day sending out a Circular recommending the grant of outdoor relief to 1.000,000 people? However, that is what the right hon. Gentleman did in the first days of May, and I am not blaming him. He did absolutely the same as his colleague the Scottish Minister. Now the parish councils in Scotland are to get a subvention of 40 per cent. of the relief they gave in consequence of that Circular, but the English boards of guardians are not to get any subvention towards the exactly similar relief given to people in exactly
similar circumstances on exactly the same recommendation from the English Minister.
That inequality cannot stand. Even this Government, which has such a large majority, will not be able to stand the hammering it will get in all these areas up and down the country. The ironworks on the Tyne, which have been finding the burden of the rates a terrific handicap in the cost of production, see the ironworks on the Clyde relieved of their heavy burden to the extent of 40 per cent. The people of Barrow, where they have been suffering as much as anywhere, have got no relief whatsoever towards their outlay, whereas their competitors on the other side of the border are to receive this subvention. I venture to prophesy that even this Government with its docile majority going gradually slipping down towards the dissolution, will not be able to maintain that inequality, and that just as 40 per cent. has been given to the parish councils of Scotland so the English Minister will find that the Government will have to give 40 per cent. to the English Poor Law authorities.

Mr. T. GRIFFITHS: And the Welsh.

Mr. WEBB: That will only add to the difficulty; and the indignation will not be less if there is inequality of treatment added to the heaviness of the burden. What are the Government going to do with regard to the £16,000,000 which is the debt of the Poor Law authorities? It is practically impossible to require all those areas to repay that indebtedness. A large number of them have an indebtedness which runs into millions. There are some which have more than £1,000,000 of debt, and there are large numbers with more than £500,000. It is practically impossible for them to pay off that indebtedness except on terms. What is the hon. Gentleman going to do? We are told that we are to have legislation to abolish boards of guardians and in the rural areas to merge them, to put it briefly, in the county councils. Are the boards of guardians going to carry this debt to the county councils? Are the county councils to be asked to accept as a charge on the whole county the indebtedness of boards of guardians in industrial parts of the county? Rural county councils are up in arms already about
this proposal. If you are going to ask these rural councils, as the price of taking over the Poor Law duties, to pile up on the shoulders of the whole county rural and mining parts, this permanent Poor Law indebtedness the Bill will be kicked out of the House by Conservative Members. It is quite impossible for county councils to undertake, out of the rates of the county council, to repay the debt which boards of guardians in the industrial parts of the county have incurred.
I do not know whether the hon. Member for Cumberland happens to be here. Cockermouth and Whitehaven Boards of Guardians have both incurred considerable indebtedness, and are bound to be taken over by the Cumberland County Council. What will the Cumberland County Council say if their ratepayers are to bear this charge? Nottinghamshire is a county in which there are coal mines and also beautiful forests. What will Nottingham County Council say if it is asked to take over the indebtedness of the board of guardians at Mansfield or Workshop? It is not a feasible proposition. I submit to the hon. Member that they cannot intend to ask the county council to take over the burden of indebtedness of these hoards of guardians. It cannot be done. Not even this Government could possibly do that. The Government will have, in some way or other, to wipe out this indebtedness of the boards of guardians. If they think they are going to get £2,900,000 from the West Ham Union, and £1,800,000 from Sheffield Union, and £994,000 from the Bedwellty Union, or whether they are giving grants to Monmouth, will they give it to the county council of Monmouthshire to take over the indebtedness of the whole county? The thing is impossible. Therefore, I suggest that when this Bill of Poor Law reform is brought forward it must include some plan for wiping out this indebtedness of boards of guardians, and, that being so, would it not be better for the Government to come to grips with this problem? It will require to give some further financial assistance to these necessitous areas, not because they are necessitous areas, but because they are communities which have had to incur large burdens with the sanction of the Minister of Health at every step. He has had complete control over them.
Every action they have carried out must have been in accordance with the law, because otherwise the auditors would have surcharged them.
From all these necessitous areas there has been coming, week after week, to the Minister of Health cases in which relief has been granted contrary to the order of the Minister, and yet he has sanctioned those cases week by week. Consequently, he cannot turn round now and complain about extravagance. But even in all these cases it is the fault of the Minister of Health. While all this extravagance was going on, what were the right hon. Gentleman's auditors and inspectors doing? The Minister of Health knew what was going on in places like Chester-le-Street and Bedwellty because he had the reports of the auditors and clerks before him, and he sanctioned the expenditure week by week. Surely it is not right for the right hon. Gentleman to turn round now on those bodies.
Nobody suggests that the necessities of the necessitous areas are due to extravagance. I think we ought to ask the Government to consider whether they ought not even now to come to the assistance

ance of those areas in the interests of the community by granting some assistance to the rates. In some of those areas the income Tax is a mere trifle compared with the local rates, because the man who is struggling to get a contract and take it on at next to no profit has very little Income Tax to pay, but he cannot escape the rates which are charged to the fullest extent on his factory. I ask the Government to come at once to the help of the necessitous areas because their present position is standing in the way of trade revival. The Government could do this by assuming responsibility to the extent of 40 per cent. of those exceptional claims, or they could do it by increasing the grants-in-aid for that particular service. They may not be able to take over the unemployed, but they ought, at any rate, to deal with them equally all over the country without adopting the sternness but with all the Rhadamanthine purity of the Minister of Health.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 128; Noes, 221.

Division No. 28.]
AYES.
[11.0 p.m.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Greenall, T.
March, S.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Montague, Frederick


Ammon, Charles George
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bllston)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Mosley, Oswald


Baker, Walter
Groves, T.
Naylor, T. E.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Grundy, T. W.
Oliver, George Harold


Barnes, A.
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Palin, John Henry


Barr, J.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Batey, Joseph
Hardie, George D.
Ponsonby, Arthur


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Potts, John S.


Bondfield, Margaret
Hayday, Arthur
Purcell, A. A.


Broad, F, A.
Hayes, John Henry
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Bromfield, William
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Riley, Ben


Bromley, J
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Ritson, J.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Hirst, G. H.
Robinson,W. C. (Yorks, W.R., Elland)


Buchanan, G.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Rose, Frank H.


Charleton, H. C.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Scrymgeour, E.


Clowes, S.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Scurr, John


Cluse, W. S.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Sexton, J mes


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Compton, Joseph
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Connolly, M.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Crawfurd, H. E.
Kelly, W. T.
Sitch, Charles H.


Dalton, Hugh
Kennedy, T.
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lansbury, George
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Day, Colonel Harry
Lawrence, Susan
Smith, H. E. Lees (Keighley)


Dennison, R.
Lawson, John James
Snell, Harry


Duncan, C.
Lee, F.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Dunnico, H.
Lindley, F. W.
Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles


Fenby, T. D.
Lowth, T.
Stamford, T, W.


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Lunn, William
Stephen, Campbell


Gibbins, Joseph
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J R.(Aberavon)
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Gillett, George M.
Mackinder, W.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
MacLaren, Andrew
Sullivan, J.


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Sutton, J. E.


Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Thurtle, Ernest
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Tinker, John Joseph
Wellock, Wilfred
Wright, W.


Townend, A. E.
Welsh, J. C.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.
Westwood, J.



Varley, Frank B.
Whiteley, W.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Viant, S. P.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr.


Wallhead, Richard C.
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)
Charles Edwards.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Mason, Lieut.-Colonel Glyn K.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Merriman, F. B.


Ainsworth, Major Charles
Fermoy, Lord
Meyer, Sir Frank


Albery, Irving James
Fielden, E. B.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Ford, Sir P. J.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Forrest, W.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Moore, Sir Newt-n J.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Fraser, Captain Ian
Moreing, Captain A. H.


Atholl, Duchess of
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive


Barnett, Major Sir R.
Gates, Percy
Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Nelson, Sir Frank


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Goff, Sir Park
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Gower, Sir Robert
Nuttall, Ellis


Bethel, A.
Grace, John
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)


Betterton, Henry B.
Grant, Sir J. A.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Grattan Doyle, Sir N.
Penny, Frederick George


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Blundell, F. N.
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Grotrian, H. Brent
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Braithwaite, Major A N.
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Radford, E. A.


Brass, Captain W.
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Raine, W.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Hammersley, S. S
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Briscoe, Richard George
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Rees, Sir Beddoe


Brittain, Sir Harry
Harland, A.
Remer, J. R.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Harrison, G. J. C.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Hartington, Marquess of
Ropner, Major L.


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Ruggies-Brise, Major E. A.


Brown, Maj. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Hawke, John Anthony
Rye, F. G.


Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Salmon, Major I.


Burman, J. B.
Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxfd,Henley)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur p.
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Butt, Sir Alfred
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Holland, Sir Arthur
Sandon, Lord


Campbell, E. T.
Holt, Capt. H. P.
Savery, S. S.


Carver, Major W. H.
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)


Cassels, J. D.
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Cayzer,Maj.Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Colonel C. K.
Skelton, A. N.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney,N.)
Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Hume, Sir G. H.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Huntingfield, Lord
Smithers, Waldron


Chilcott, Sir Warden
Hutchison,G.A. Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Christie, J. A.
Iliffe, Sir Edward M.
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Clarry, Reginald George
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F.(Will'sden, E)


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir G. K.
Jacob, A. E.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Jephcott, A. R.
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Cope, Major William
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Couper, J. B.
Lamb, J Q.
Styles, Captain H. Walter


Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Loder, J. de V.
Tasker, R. Inigo.


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Crookshank,Cpt.H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.
Lumley, L. R.
Tinne, J. A.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
MacAndrew Major Charles Glen
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Davies, Dr. Vernon
McLean, Major A.
Waddington. R.


Dawson, Sir Philip
Macmillan, Captain H.
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Dixey, A. C.
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Ward, Lt.-Col.A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Eden, Captain Anthony
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Watts, Dr. T.


England, Colonel A.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Wells, S. R.


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Margesson, Captain D.
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple-


Everard, W. Lindsay
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Wiggins, William Martin




Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)
Winterton, Ht. Hon. Earl
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).


Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
Wise, Sir Fredric



Wilson, M. J. (York, N. R., Richm'd)
Withers, John James
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgewater)
Mr. Herbert Williams and Mr.


Windsor-Clive, Lieut-Colonel George
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)
Mitchell Banks.

Question proposed, "That those words be there added."

Several HON. MEMBERS: rose—

It being after Eleven Debate stood adjourned.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Commander Eyres Monsell.]

Adjourned accordingly at Nine Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.